Tinubu’s reforms can put Nigeria on path to economic growth – Afenifere organising secretary

At 70, Otunba Kole Omololu, National Organising Secretary of Afenifere and Convener of the Conscience of Yoruba Nation Group, remains an outspoken advocate of restructuring, true federalism and economic reform. In this interview with YEMI OLAKITAN, he explains Afenifere’s support for President Bola Tinubu’s second-term bid, defends the removal of the fuel subsidy and more. Excerpts…

Afenifere has been associated with democracy, federalism, restructuring and good governance since 1951. How relevant are these principles today, and how would you assess the Tinubu administration?

They remain completely relevant because the fundamental problems that produced those demands have not disappeared. Afenifere has always believed that Nigeria will function better when political authority, economic responsibility and accountability are distributed appropriately among the federating units. We have also consistently advocated democratic governance, social justice and an economy that rewards production rather than dependence. Against that background, I believe President Bola Tinubu deserves commendation for confronting some of the structural weaknesses that successive administrations recognised but failed to resolve.

Take, for example, the issue of fuel subsidy. When declining oil revenue became a major concern after the oil boom, the government introduced the subsidy regime. Successive administrations, rather than removing a measure that was initially intended to be temporary, continued with it despite the growing economic burden. Governments were reluctant to confront the issue because of the political consequences. Over time, the subsidy became deeply entrenched and increasingly expensive. By the time of the Goodluck Jonathan administration, Nigeria was borrowing to finance the subsidy.

In 2012, then Central Bank Governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi raised concerns about the state of the economy, while then Coordinating Minister for the Economy and Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, also warned about the country’s financial difficulties.

When President Bola Tinubu came into office, he confronted the issue by announcing the removal of the fuel subsidy in his inaugural address. In my view, that was a bold political decision. The foreign exchange regime also required reform, while public finances needed serious attention. The petroleum subsidy had become increasingly difficult to justify economically. These were not problems created by the present administration, but they could not continue indefinitely. The administration has therefore opened an important chapter in Nigeria’s economic reform. However, government must respond to the social consequences of its policies, protect vulnerable Nigerians and ensure that reform produces measurable improvements in living standards.

Afenifere’s position is consequently one of constructive support. We acknowledge what is being done well, identify areas that require improvement and continue to advocate the structural changes necessary for a more effective federation.

Afenifere supports President Tinubu for a second term. What makes him the preferred choice?

Our position is based on a comparative assessment. President Tinubu possesses extensive political experience and a demonstrated understanding of how political decisions affect economic policy. More importantly, he has shown a willingness to confront difficult issues rather than perpetually defer them. When I look at the presidential contenders presently before Nigerians, I do not see another candidate offering what I consider to be a comparable combination of political experience, economic understanding and ambition for transforming the country. This is not a claim that Tinubu is without shortcomings. He is a politician, not a miracle worker. His administration must still improve the implementation of its policies, address the cost-of-living pressures confronting Nigerians and demonstrate that economic reforms are producing broader prosperity.

Elections are about choices, not perfection. Nigeria needs a government capable of sustaining economic reform, attracting investment, improving productivity and strengthening institutions. We believe Tinubu is capable of pursuing that agenda. There is also value in policy stability. Investors, businesses and institutions require a reasonably predictable policy environment. A government should therefore be given sufficient time to consolidate major reforms rather than having every policy reversed with each electoral cycle.

For those reasons, Afenifere supports President Tinubu’s second term.

Some presidential contestants have cited Singapore as an example of what Nigeria could achieve. What lessons should Nigeria draw from Singapore?

Nigeria should certainly study Singapore, but we must distinguish between learning from a successful country and attempting to reproduce its system wholesale. Singapore’s transformation was built on disciplined public administration, investment in education and infrastructure, industrial policy, strong institutions and long-term planning. However, its political and constitutional circumstances are fundamentally different from Nigeria’s. The People’s Action Party has governed Singapore continuously since 1959. That degree of political continuity has allowed successive governments to pursue long-term policies without the interruptions associated with frequent changes of government. Singapore is also a small city-state rather than a large federal republic comprising 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. Nigeria’s Constitution creates its own institutional requirements. For example, the composition of the Federal Executive is influenced by constitutional provisions concerning representation of the states. The United States presents another useful comparison. Its federal structure and constitutional arrangements are different from ours, so the American experience cannot simply be transplanted into Nigeria either.

If we want a smaller and more efficient government, we should have an honest constitutional debate about the size and responsibilities of the Federal Government. That is one reason restructuring remains important. The lesson from Singapore is not that Nigeria should copy Singapore. The lesson is that sustained policy, competent institutions and long-term thinking can transform a country. Nigeria must discover how to achieve those objectives within our own constitutional and political circumstances.

The removal of the fuel subsidy has generated considerable hardship. Was the decision nevertheless necessary?

Yes, it was necessary. For years, Nigerian governments acknowledged that the subsidy system was becoming economically unsustainable. Yet successive administrations repeatedly postponed decisive action because of the political consequences. The problem was not simply the amount of money involved. The subsidy distorted the petroleum market, encouraged cross-border smuggling, created opportunities for arbitrage and weakened the capacity of government to deploy resources elsewhere. The important question is whether Nigeria could continue indefinitely financing such a system. The answer was no. There is always a cost to subsidy. If government borrows to finance it, the cost is transferred to future generations. If it finances the deficit through monetary expansion, inflation imposes the burden on citizens. If public resources are diverted towards subsidy, other priorities suffer.

Some political statements about restoring the subsidy have subsequently been qualified because the practical difficulty is obvious. Any such promise must be matched by a credible source of funding. The appropriate debate now is therefore about what government does with the consequences of the reform. Nigeria needs efficient public transportation, targeted assistance for vulnerable citizens, greater domestic refining capacity, increased agricultural and industrial production and investment that lowers the cost of doing business.

The removal of the subsidy should ultimately help move Nigeria from an economy heavily dependent on importing refined products towards one that produces and retains more value domestically. The decision was politically difficult, but the difficulty of a decision does not make the underlying problem disappear.

What does restructuring mean to Afenifere in practical terms, particularly with regard to the economy?

• CNG: Will transport fares really drop on October 1?
• FG didn’t fund Ibadan airport with N50bn — Makinde
• Atiku cites SBM survey to justify fuel subsidy proposal

For Afenifere, restructuring means creating a federation in which responsibilities and resources are more appropriately distributed. Nigeria has become excessively dependent on the Federal Government. Too many responsibilities are concentrated in Abuja, while many states rely heavily on federal allocations. That arrangement does not provide sufficient incentive for states to develop their productive capacity. Fiscal federalism should therefore be central to restructuring. States should have greater authority over taxation and economic resources, but that autonomy must come with responsibility.

A state that receives greater fiscal powers should also be expected to develop its agricultural, industrial, mineral, technological and commercial potential.

The same principle applies to security. State policing deserves serious consideration because states understand their local security circumstances better than a distant central authority can.

There should also be a clearer division of responsibilities between the Federal Government and the federating units. President Tinubu has helped to reopen this conversation through his broader economic reforms. The pressure created by the present fiscal structure makes it increasingly difficult to ignore the question of how Nigeria should distribute economic responsibility.

However, comprehensive restructuring will require constitutional changes in several areas. It cannot be achieved by presidential policy alone. The ultimate objective is a federation in which every level of government has defined responsibilities, sufficient resources to perform them and corresponding accountability for results.

Critics argue that Afenifere’s support for Tinubu could compromise its independence. Do you agree?

Political support does not amount to political subservience. Afenifere is supporting President Tinubu because we have assessed the available political choices and concluded that we believe he offers a viable prospect for advancing the interests of Nigeria. That decision does not prevent us from disagreeing with his government. An organisation with principles should be capable of both commendation and criticism. If the administration performs well, we should say so. If it makes mistakes, we should identify them. If it fails to pursue reforms that we consider essential, we will continue to demand them. Our support is also not based simply on ethnicity. The fact that Tinubu is Yoruba is part of Nigeria’s political reality, but it is not the sole basis for determining our position. The larger question is whether his leadership serves the national interest. That is why our position should not be misunderstood as unconditional political allegiance. Afenifere supports Tinubu’s second term because we believe his experience, reform agenda and political capacity give him an advantage in pursuing the objectives we consider important.

At the same time, we expect the administration to remain responsive to Nigerians, deepen economic reforms, strengthen democratic institutions and continue the movement towards a more genuinely federal Nigeria. Our support is a political choice. Our principles remain independent. And our ultimate loyalty is to Nigeria.

You have cited comments by Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala on economic growth and stability. What do you make of their assessments?

Let me quote two experts: Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. First, Emir Sanusi said the economy had grown by more than three per cent in the first quarter and more than four per cent in the second quarter, describing it as the first time the economy had grown faster than the population. That is significant. Dr Okonjo-Iweala also spoke about the efforts of the President and his team to stabilise the economy. Her point was that an economy cannot be improved unless it is stable and that the President deserves credit for economic stability. These are important voices in the economic debate, and their assessments should not be ignored.

Economic stability has practical implications. If the exchange rate becomes more stable, investors can plan without the fear of excessive fluctuations in the foreign exchange market, while importers can make more reasonable pricing decisions. If stronger economic growth is sustained and employment opportunities increase, the expectation is that living conditions will gradually improve. The next step is to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are reflected in the lives of ordinary Nigerians.

You describe yourself as an unapologetic supporter of President Tinubu. Why?

First, let me thank you for noticing and drawing attention to Mr President’s kind words on my 70th birthday in February 2026. I regard that acknowledgement as gracious and deeply appreciated. Since my days in the Afenifere UK Chapter, my political outlook has remained consistent with the organisation’s longstanding convictions, particularly on restructuring, true federalism, economic development, social justice and the advancement of the Yoruba people within a united Nigeria. In my present capacity as National Organising Secretary of Afenifere, I can state unequivocally that my views on the present administration accord with the organisation’s position. Afenifere will, of course, communicate its formal position through its appropriate structures. Let us also confront the economic circumstances with some intellectual honesty. President Tinubu did not inherit a flourishing economy in May 2023. He assumed responsibility for an economy weakened by structural deficiencies, shrinking fiscal space, foreign exchange distortions, debt pressures and years of postponed reforms.

Successive elected administrations since 1999 had opportunities to confront these problems more decisively, but I believe the political will for fundamental change was frequently lacking.

This does not give the present administration a blank cheque. Reform has consequences, and Nigerians are entitled to demand that the burden of adjustment is fairly distributed, waste is curtailed, public resources are properly accounted for and economic growth ultimately translates into tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens.

My position is therefore principled rather than sentimental. I admire bold leaders, and I consider Tinubu one of them. I compare him to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. I am a Labour Party supporter, but Thatcher, a Conservative Prime Minister, remains one of my political heroes because of what I believe she did to restore the United Kingdom’s economy. Tinubu inherited difficult problems which successive governments had deferred, and he eventually confronted them, however politically inconvenient the process has been.

If the reforms are given sufficient time to mature, I believe Nigerians would begin to see the positive results of the Renewed Hope Agenda more clearly during the administration’s second term. I support President Tinubu, and I appeal to Nigerians to support him as well. Lagos has always been associated with enterprise, wealth creation and opportunity. I believe those values should continue to support policies that promote economic development and prosperity.