By Abba Dukawa
These questions are particularly relevant when comparing the administrations of former President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Buhari substantially increased Nigeria’s debt during his eight years in office, while Tinubu inherited that burden and has overseen a further rise in the recorded debt stock. However, understanding their respective borrowing records requires more than comparing headline figures.
When Buhari assumed office in 2015, Nigeria’s public debt was considerably lower than it is today. By December 2022, it had reached approximately N46.25 trillion, according to the Debt Management Office (DMO). The increase occurred amid significant economic challenges, including falling oil prices, recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. These shocks weakened government revenue and intensified pressure on public spending, making borrowing an important source of financing.
These circumstances provide context for Buhari’s borrowing record, but they do not remove the need for accountability. Despite the economic challenges, questions remain about whether borrowed funds were invested efficiently in infrastructure, productive capacity and other projects capable of generating lasting economic benefits. The central issue is not simply whether borrowing was justified, but whether it delivered sufficient value for money.
The N22.7 Trillion Ways and Means Question: A fair comparison between Buhari and Tinubu must account for the N22.7 trillion in Ways and Means advances from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
The DMO reported Nigeria’s total public debt at N87.38 trillion as of June 2023, shortly after Tinubu assumed office. This figure included N22.712 trillion in securitised Ways and Means advances, which were formally incorporated into the public debt stock.
This distinction is crucial. The increase from N46.25 trillion in December 2022 to N87.38 trillion in June 2023 cannot reasonably be treated entirely as fresh borrowing by Tinubu. A substantial portion represented an existing obligation accumulated before his administration and subsequently recognised in the official debt figures.
However, the fact that the liability was securitised under Tinubu does not erase its origins from Buhari’s fiscal record. A fair assessment must distinguish between the administration that accumulated an obligation and the administration under which it was formally incorporated into the reported debt stock. Inherited liabilities should neither be misattributed nor ignored.
Tinubu: Reforms Amid Rising Debt: Tinubu inherited an economy grappling with many of the structural weaknesses that confronted Buhari, including low government revenue, fiscal deficits, rising debt-service obligations and distortions in the fuel and foreign-exchange markets.
His administration introduced major reforms, particularly the removal of the petrol subsidy and changes to foreign-exchange policy. These measures were intended to reduce fiscal distortions, improve resource allocation and strengthen public finances.
However, the reforms have not eliminated the government’s reliance on borrowing. According to the data released by the Debt Management Office (DMO) for the second quarter of 2026, Nigeria’s total public debt stood at N166.79 trillion ($120.93 billion) as of June 30, 2026. This represents a 4.67% increase from the N159.35 trillion recorded at the end of March 2026. As the DMO has yet to formally publish the official public debt figures for the third quarter of 2026, which ended on September 30, the Q2 figures remain the latest available official data. Nigeria’s total public debt increased by N79.41 trillion, representing a nominal increase of approximately 90.9% between June 2023 and June 30, 2026.
One thing that amused people , Tinubu administration generated a combined N157.786 trillion in oil and non-oil revenue from 2023 to 2026 (up to the latest available reporting period in 2026). This comprises N52.956 trillion in oil revenue and N104.83 trillion in non-oil revenue, covering the three full years from 2023 to 2025 and part of 2026. The key questions are straightforward: How much additional debt has the administration contracted? What has the money financed? How much has been repaid? And what economic benefits have resulted?
The answer depends on what is being measured. On the basis of the cited figures, Nigeria’s recorded public debt increased by approximately N65.02 trillion between June 2023 and June 2025 under Tinubu. Buhari, meanwhile, presided over a substantial expansion of public debt during his eight years in office.
However, comparing the two administrations solely by the nominal increase in debt can be misleading. Their periods in office differed in duration, economic conditions and exchange-rate circumstances. Changes in the treatment of existing liabilities also complicate the comparison.
A definitive assessment would require consistent data covering net new borrowing, repayments, inherited obligations, debt restructuring and exchange-rate effects across comparable periods.
The available figures establish that Nigeria’s recorded debt burden rose substantially under both administrations. They do not, by themselves, establish which president contracted more fresh debt or which administration made more effective use of borrowed funds.
That distinction matters because borrowing is not inherently harmful. Governments can use debt to finance infrastructure, electricity, transport, education, healthcare and industrial development. When properly managed, these investments can improve productivity, stimulate economic activity and expand future government revenue.
The danger arises when borrowing repeatedly finances deficits without creating sufficient productive capacity to support repayment. Nigerians should therefore look beyond political arguments over who borrowed more and ask a more fundamental question: What did the country get in return?
Tinubu’s Real Test Is Revenue: The sustainability of Nigeria’s debt depends not only on how much the government owes, but also on how much revenue it generates and how much of that revenue is consumed by debt servicing.
A country with a strong and growing revenue base can sustain a larger debt burden than one with weak revenue and limited capacity to meet its obligations. Nigeria’s historically low public revenue makes this challenge particularly serious.
Tinubu’s revenue reforms must therefore be assessed against measurable results. Higher revenue can reduce the need for borrowing and improve the government’s capacity to service existing obligations. However, increased revenue alone does not guarantee fiscal sustainability if expenditure and debt continue to grow faster.
Claims about the administration’s oil and non-oil revenue performance should also be supported by clearly identified official records. Reliable comparisons require consistent reporting periods and a clear distinction between gross collections, net government receipts and revenue attributable to particular reforms.
Ultimately, the objective should be to establish whether revenue is growing sustainably, whether public expenditure is becoming more efficient and whether the government is reducing its dependence on borrowing.
Dukawa writes from Abuja and can be reached at abbahydukawa@gmail.com
Never miss a moment! Get the stories shaping Nigeria, delivered straight to your phone. Follow Peoplesdaily Newspaper on WhatsApp for breaking news, exclusive reports, and the headlines everyone will be talking about, before anyone else.
