The Myth Of 'Fake Life' In Nigeria: A Closer Look At Tinubu’s Claims

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu recently used an academic forum to redefine the life many Nigerians had been living prior to his tenure. Speaking at the Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA) convocation in Ondo State, Tinubu described the so-called “good life” as “fake,” one that could have led to Nigeria’s collapse without urgent reforms. However, his remarks sparked questions: Was there truly a life of luxury in Nigeria before his administration?

In his speech, Tinubu shifted the blame for Nigeria’s economic struggles onto its citizens, absolving the government—led by his party, the APC, for over eight years—of responsibility. While he alluded to petrol subsidies and currency “subsidies,” there was no clear explanation of what constituted this supposed luxury. This raises the question: was the average Nigerian truly living extravagantly, or merely surviving?

In 2015, when the APC came into power, the minimum wage was ₦18,000 (equivalent to $91.4 at the time). By 2023, though the wage had risen to ₦30,000, its dollar value had dropped to $66 due to currency devaluation. Comparatively, other African countries offered much higher minimum wages. For instance, Gabon paid ₦376,000, Ghana ₦60,000, and even Liberia, often labeled a poor country, paid $91. Tinubu’s administration later increased Nigeria’s minimum wage to ₦70,000, but its actual value was just $44—barely enough to buy basic necessities.

Despite incremental wage increases, many Nigerian workers struggled with inflation and the rising cost of living. Even employers found it challenging to match these wage adjustments due to high production costs. By mid-2023, only 21 of Nigeria’s 36 states had agreed to implement the new ₦70,000 minimum wage, highlighting the disparity between policy and practicality.

Unlike countries like Vietnam, where wages are reviewed annually to match inflation rates, Nigeria lacks a framework to cushion workers against economic pressures. Historically, wage adjustments have been the result of labor unions pressuring the government, rather than strategic planning to support citizens during inflationary periods.

Tinubu’s assertion that Nigeria’s current economic woes stem from fuel and dollar subsidies simplifies a more complex reality. He overlooked key historical milestones, such as former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s negotiation of debt relief with the Paris Club in 2004. By clearing significant debts, Obasanjo freed Nigeria from its debt trap. However, under the APC-led administration, the country’s debt burden skyrocketed. From 2015 to 2023, domestic debt rose from ₦8.84 trillion to ₦44.91 trillion, while external debt ballooned from $7.35 billion to $37.2 billion.

Rather than addressing these systemic issues, Tinubu’s narrative suggests that ordinary Nigerians lived beyond their means, which contradicts the lived reality of most citizens. The suggestion that Nigerians enjoyed “undeserved luxury” ignores the widespread poverty and economic hardships they endured even before his administration.

This narrative deflects attention from the APC’s economic mismanagement and shields those responsible for Nigeria’s financial struggles. Until there is accountability for the policies and actions that deepened the country’s debt and economic decline, Tinubu’s administration lacks a clear plan to alleviate the suffering of Nigerians.

In reality, most Nigerians never lived a life of luxury, fake or otherwise—they merely survived. The rhetoric of “fake life” dismisses their struggles and shifts the focus away from the need for genuine reforms. As things stand, the administration appears more focused on redefining hardship as the new normal than on creating a sustainable path to economic recovery and improved living standards.