0
0
Nigeria is not merely borrowing – it is drifting into a new architecture of dependence, one constructed not by external colonial powers, but by internal choices that replicate the same logic of extraction, concentration, and exclusion. Under the stewardship of Bola Ahmed Tinubu, public debt is no longer a cautious instrument of development; it has become a governing philosophy – an almost reflexive response to every challenge, as though the future is an expendable resource to be traded for present political consolidation. This is not fiscal policy. It is fiscal surrender.
There is something profoundly unsettling about the speed, scale, and casualness with which Nigeria now accumulates debt. Loans are contracted in billions, denominated in currencies that bind the nation to volatile global markets, and justified with broad, often unexamined promises of infrastructure and growth. Yet beneath these justifications lies a more troubling reality: a pattern of deployment that raises fundamental questions about whose development is being prioritized, and at whose expense. Because when one strips away the language of national progress, what begins to emerge is a geography of preference.
Lagos – undeniably important, undeniably strategic – has become the gravitational center of federal investment financed by collective borrowing. Roads, ports, rail lines, airports, energy infrastructure – layer upon layer of capital-intensive projects converge upon a single urban axis. Meanwhile, vast swathes of the country remain trapped in infrastructural stagnation, their potentials unrealized, their needs deferred, their citizens told, implicitly, to wait. Wait for development. Wait for inclusion. Wait for relevance.
But debt does not wait. Every loan contracted today begins accruing obligations immediately – interest ticking silently, repayment schedules forming with mathematical indifference to political rhetoric. And when the time comes to repay, the burden will not be borne by Lagos alone. It will not be distributed according to who benefited most. It will fall, indiscriminately, upon the entire federation. The paradox, then, is stark: a national liability underwriting what increasingly appears to be a regional concentration of assets. This is where the issue transcends economics and enters the realm of justice.
For what is unfolding resembles, in structural terms, a familiar pattern – one historically associated with colonial economies: the extraction of value from the periphery to finance development at the center. The language has changed, the actors have changed, but the underlying logic feels eerily consistent. Regions become sources of revenue, taxation, and debt repayment, while investment flows disproportionately toward already advantaged zones. This is how inequality is not just created, but institutionalized.
And yet, in any functioning democracy, such a trajectory would trigger resistance – not necessarily from the streets alone, but from the institutions designed to moderate power. Which brings us to the legislature. The National Assembly, vested with the constitutional authority to interrogate borrowing and protect the fiscal integrity of the state, has instead receded into a posture of alarming compliance. Loan approvals move through the system with a velocity that suggests pre-determined outcomes. Debate is muted. Scrutiny is shallow. Oversight is procedural rather than substantive.
It is as though the ritual of approval has replaced the responsibility of evaluation. This erosion of legislative vigilance is not a minor procedural flaw – it is a systemic failure. Because when the gatekeepers of public finance cease to question, the gates do not merely open – they disappear entirely. And in that vacuum, executive discretion expands unchecked.
Defenders of the current approach often retreat to a familiar argument: that Lagos is Nigeria’s economic nerve center, and that strengthening it yields benefits for the entire country. On the surface, this appears rational. But upon closer examination, it reveals a dangerous simplification.
An economy is not strengthened by over-concentration. It is strengthened by diversification, by the deliberate cultivation of multiple centers of productivity, resilience, and growth. To invest disproportionately in one region is not to build strength – it is to create vulnerability. It ties national prosperity to a single geographic node, amplifying risk and deepening imbalance.
More importantly, it sends a message – subtle, but powerful – that some parts of the country are engines, while others are passengers. That some regions are destinations of progress, while others are reservoirs of obligation. This is not how nations endure. A federation is not sustained by economic logic alone. It is sustained by perception – by the shared belief that the state belongs equally to all, that sacrifice is matched by benefit, that no region is permanently consigned to the margins of national planning. Once that belief begins to erode, the consequences are not immediate, but they are inevitable.
Disillusionment replaces loyalty. Resentment replaces solidarity. And the idea of nationhood begins to hollow from within. There is also a generational dimension to this unfolding crisis – one that is often overlooked in the urgency of present debates. Debt is, by its very nature, a claim on the future. It is a decision made today that constrains tomorrow. When governments borrow recklessly or deploy borrowed funds unevenly, they are not merely making policy choices -they are shaping the horizon of possibilities available to the next generation.
What kind of inheritance is being constructed? A country burdened by obligations it did not equitably benefit from. An economy skewed toward a single dominant region. A political culture in which scrutiny is optional and accountability negotiable. This is not inheritance – it is encumbrance.
And history offers little comfort. Nations that have walked this path – of unchecked borrowing, regional imbalance, and institutional complacency – rarely recognize the tipping point when they approach it. Decline does not announce itself dramatically. It accumulates quietly, beneath the surface, until the weight of contradictions becomes too heavy to sustain. By the time the crisis becomes visible, the options have already narrowed. Nigeria is not there yet. But the trajectory, if unaltered, points in a troubling direction.
The solution is neither complex nor mysterious. It requires a return to principles that should never have been abandoned: transparency in borrowing, equity in distribution, rigor in legislative oversight, and a genuinely national vision of development – one that sees every region not as a footnote, but as a stakeholder.
Borrowing, if it must occur, should bind the country together through shared benefit – not pull it apart through perceived exclusion. Because in the end, the greatest danger is not debt itself. It is the quiet normalization of imbalance – until a nation no longer recognizes that it has ceased to be fair, ceased to be inclusive, and, ultimately, ceased to be whole.
