The National Economic Council’s new action plan promises cheaper food, faster projects, investment and household support. But without clear targets, adequate funding, firm accountability and preventive planning, another government deadline could become another unfulfilled promise.
Nigeria’s economic managers have announced another deadline. This time, they have 90 days to make life easier for millions of Nigerians struggling with the cost of living.
The National Economic Council (NEC), at its 161st meeting, chaired virtually by Vice-President Kashim Shettima, has approved a 90-day economic action plan proposed by the Federal Ministry of Finance. The initiative focuses on five areas: food affordability, tax harmonisation, completion of high-impact projects, removal of investment bottlenecks and regulated household support.
A national project dashboard is also planned to monitor projects and track the use of public funds, including proceeds from the removal of petrol subsidy.
On paper, these are sensible priorities. Food is expensive, businesses face numerous obstacles, infrastructure projects take too long to complete, and households need relief from the cumulative effects of economic reforms. Better coordination between federal and state governments is equally necessary.
But there is a fundamental question the government must answer: why does it appear to wait until economic hardship becomes politically and socially uncomfortable before announcing an emergency plan to address problems that should have been anticipated?
The cost-of-living crisis did not emerge overnight. Neither did the difficulties confronting farmers, manufacturers, transport operators and small businesses. The consequences of higher petrol prices, exchange-rate adjustments, expensive credit and rising production costs were foreseeable.
Why, therefore, should Nigerians have to wait for a 90-day intervention before government gives urgent attention to problems that have been affecting their daily lives for years?
The question is not whether the plan is desirable. It is whether it is sufficiently detailed, properly funded and realistically designed to deliver measurable improvements within the promised period.
The figures tell a complicated story
The government’s plan comes at a time when some economic indicators are improving, but the relief felt by households remains uncertain.
According to the National Bureau of Statistics, headline inflation fell from 15.39 per cent in August 2026 to 14.63 per cent in September. Food inflation stood at 19.59 per cent year-on-year in September, while month-on-month food inflation was negative 1.55 per cent.
This is encouraging, but it does not mean that food has suddenly become affordable. A decline in the inflation rate generally means that prices are rising more slowly; it does not necessarily mean that prices have returned to levels households could afford before the crisis.
The World Bank has highlighted the depth of the problem. Its October 2025 analysis reported that the cost of a basic basket of food items most consumed by poor Nigerians had increased approximately fivefold between 2019 and 2024. Poor households may spend as much as 70 per cent of their income on food, leaving little for rent, healthcare, transport, education and other essentials.
The International Monetary Fund also estimated that 27 million Nigerians faced food insecurity in the autumn of 2025.
These figures demonstrate why government cannot judge the success of its economic reforms principally by movements in inflation, foreign exchange or other macroeconomic indicators. Such indicators matter, but the ultimate test is whether ordinary Nigerians can afford food, keep their businesses running and meet their basic needs.
The NEC plan acknowledges this gap between economic reforms and household welfare. What remains unclear, however, is precisely how much difference it will make within 90 days.
Why was the crisis not anticipated?
Economic policymaking inevitably involves uncertainty. Governments cannot predict every international shock, security incident, weather event or market disruption. But uncertainty is not an excuse for failing to prepare for foreseeable consequences.
When the Tinubu administration removed the petrol subsidy in May 2023 and moved towards exchange-rate unification, the potential consequences for transport fares, food distribution, manufacturing costs and household purchasing power were evident.
Petrol is not merely a commodity consumed by motorists. In Nigeria, where road transport carries much of the movement of people and goods, its price influences the cost of moving farm produce from rural communities to urban markets. It also affects generators used by businesses, production costs and the prices consumers eventually pay.
Similarly, exchange-rate adjustments affect businesses that depend on imported machinery, raw materials, medicines and other essential inputs. Higher financing costs can further discourage investment and expansion.
The reforms may have been intended to address serious structural weaknesses in the economy. But announcing a policy and anticipating its consequences should be inseparable exercises.
Where were the comprehensive measures to protect vulnerable households, expand affordable public transport, improve food distribution, strengthen agricultural production and reduce the cost of doing business before the effects became so severe?
Why did the government not establish clear benchmarks for measuring the social costs of the reforms and automatically activate relief measures when those benchmarks were breached?
A government that plans effectively does not wait for hardship to become widespread before responding. It identifies risks, prepares alternatives, establishes safeguards and monitors the effects of its decisions.
The problem, therefore, is not simply that the government has announced an action plan late. It is the recurring impression that policy implementation is proceeding without sufficiently visible contingency planning.
Can five priorities deliver results in 90 days?
The five areas identified by NEC are relevant, but each requires a different approach. They cannot all be solved by issuing directives or setting deadlines.
1. Food affordability requires more than promises
Food affordability should be the most immediate priority because it directly affects household survival.
The government must identify the major causes of high food prices in different parts of the country. These include insecurity in farming communities, high transport costs, inadequate storage, poor rural roads, expensive farm inputs, post-harvest losses and inefficient distribution networks.
Within 90 days, government can take practical steps: release verified food stocks where available, facilitate transparent purchases from farmers, improve access to existing warehouses, remove avoidable transport and market bottlenecks, and support the movement of produce from surplus-producing areas to deficit markets.
It can also publish prices for selected staple foods across major markets to establish whether interventions are making a measurable difference.
But it would be unrealistic to promise a complete transformation of agricultural productivity within three months. Expanding irrigation, improving rural infrastructure, securing farming communities and establishing efficient processing facilities require sustained investment.
The immediate objective should be to reduce avoidable costs and improve the availability of essential foods, while laying the foundation for long-term agricultural growth.
2. Tax harmonisation must reduce confusion, not merely reorganise it
Tax harmonisation is another sensible priority. Businesses and individuals should not face confusing, overlapping or arbitrary levies imposed by different levels of government.
However, harmonisation must go beyond meetings between revenue authorities. It should produce a clear, accessible framework identifying lawful taxes, responsible authorities, payment procedures and complaint mechanisms.
Federal, state and local governments must agree on practical measures to eliminate duplicative charges and improve compliance without unnecessarily increasing the burden on struggling businesses.
The danger is that tax reform becomes another administrative exercise, with committees established and consultations held but little change experienced by traders, transport operators and small enterprises.
Success should be measured by the reduction in unlawful or duplicated charges, compliance costs and disputes—not simply by the number of meetings conducted.
3. Finish projects instead of endlessly announcing new ones
The decision to accelerate high-impact projects is particularly important.
Nigeria has long struggled with projects that consume public resources over several budget cycles without delivering the expected benefits. Delays increase costs, weaken public confidence and postpone economic gains.
The government should begin by publishing a verified inventory of priority projects, including their locations, original budgets, amounts released, funds spent, completion percentages and expected delivery dates.
Projects close to completion and capable of delivering immediate benefits should receive priority, provided their costs and contractual obligations have been independently verified.
A project dashboard could help Nigerians determine whether public money is producing roads, hospitals, schools, water facilities and other useful assets. But a dashboard is only a monitoring instrument. It cannot substitute for funding, competent contractors, effective supervision or consequences for mismanagement.
4. Investment bottlenecks require action across government
Investors need predictable policies, reliable infrastructure, transparent regulation and timely decisions.
The federal government should identify the specific administrative and regulatory obstacles delaying viable investments and assign each problem to a named institution with a deadline for resolution.
This must include coordination with state governments, which control or influence many approvals, land-related processes, local infrastructure and business operating conditions.
Investment announcements should not be confused with actual investment. The relevant measures are projects reaching financial close, capital entering the economy, businesses expanding production and jobs being created.
5. Household support must reach the people who need it
The fifth priority—regulated household support—will succeed only if assistance reaches eligible beneficiaries promptly and transparently.
Government must explain who qualifies, what support will be provided, how much it will cost, where the money will come from and how beneficiaries can challenge exclusion or report abuse.
Cash transfers, food assistance and targeted transport or energy support may provide relief, depending on the design and circumstances. But poorly maintained beneficiary registers, political interference, duplicate records and weak monitoring can undermine even well-intentioned programmes.
Support must be traceable, independently auditable and designed to protect the poorest households rather than reward political connections.
The subsidy question: where has the money gone?
The proposed national project dashboard offers an opportunity to address a longstanding public concern: the use of funds released by petrol subsidy removal.
The government should publish a transparent account of the revenue or fiscal savings attributable to the policy, distinguishing verified savings from additional revenue, borrowing and other receipts. It should then show how these resources have been allocated, released and spent.
For each major project or intervention, Nigerians should be able to see the approved amount, the amount disbursed, the implementing agency, the contractor where applicable, the delivery deadline and the evidence of completion.
This information should be updated regularly and subjected to independent audit.
Transparency cannot depend on a government statement announcing that a dashboard has been approved. The public must be able to access the information, understand it and use it to hold officials accountable.
Where projects stall, funds are unaccounted for or deadlines are missed without reasonable explanation, the responsible institutions should be required to explain themselves.
How realistic is the 90-day deadline?
The answer depends on what the government intends to achieve.
Ninety days is enough to establish baselines, identify bottlenecks, release properly approved funds, accelerate selected projects, improve food distribution and begin targeted household assistance. It is also enough to publish a credible dashboard and demonstrate whether agencies are meeting their commitments.
It is not enough to solve Nigeria’s structural food crisis, eliminate poverty, rebuild the country’s infrastructure deficit or guarantee permanently low inflation and interest rates.
The plan’s stated ambition to achieve single-digit inflation and interest rates by 2027 must therefore be treated as a longer-term objective, not a result that the 90-day programme can deliver by itself.
There is also a danger that an arbitrary deadline encourages officials to prioritise activities that are easy to announce or measure over those that produce lasting results.
The government must distinguish between outputs and outcomes. Holding a meeting is an output. Completing a road is an output. Reducing the time required to move food to market, lowering distribution costs and improving household access to affordable food are outcomes.
The public deserves the latter.
What government must do differently
For the action plan to succeed, the government should adopt five disciplines.
First, publish measurable targets before implementation begins. These should include selected food prices, the number of projects to be completed, the value of investments unlocked and the number of verified households receiving support.
Second, identify the funding for each intervention and ensure that it is available. An unfunded target is a declaration of intention, not an implementation plan.
Third, assign responsibility to named ministries, agencies and state governments. Each should have deadlines and publicly reported performance indicators.
Fourth, publish weekly or fortnightly progress reports, supported by verifiable evidence. Independent auditors, civil society organisations, journalists and professional bodies should be able to scrutinise implementation.
Finally, establish a mechanism for correcting failure. Where an intervention is not working, officials should explain why, revise the approach and disclose the changes rather than wait until the deadline expires.
Federal-state coordination is particularly important. The Federal Government cannot independently resolve every problem affecting farming, transport, local markets, land administration and public services. State governments must be active participants, with clear responsibilities and measurable commitments.
Nigerians need results, not another deadline
The NEC’s 90-day action plan deserves to be judged on its potential to translate economic reforms into tangible improvements in people’s lives. Its priorities are relevant, and the proposed project dashboard could strengthen public accountability.
But the initiative also exposes a deeper weakness in governance: the tendency to respond to persistent problems with new plans rather than demonstrate that existing institutions have anticipated risks and acted promptly.
Nigeria does not lack policy announcements. It needs better execution, stronger coordination, reliable data, disciplined spending and consequences for non-performance.
If the government wants Nigerians to believe that the next 90 days will be different, it must publish what it intends to achieve, how it will pay for it, who is responsible and how the public will verify the results.
At the end of the period, the test should be straightforward: Are essential foods more affordable? Have selected projects been completed? Have investment obstacles been removed? Has assistance reached vulnerable households? Can Nigerians account for the money spent?
If the answer is yes, the plan will have delivered something valuable. If not, the government must explain what went wrong and what it will do differently.
The real test of leadership is not how quickly a government announces an emergency plan. It is whether it can anticipate a crisis, prepare for it and deliver results before the crisis becomes unbearable.