“Six decades! At 66, Nigerians deserve more than independence celebrations and promises of prosperity. They deserve an accounting of the loans already taken.”
Sixty-six years is not just 66 days! We are talking about 24,105 days, six decades since Nigeria hoisted its flag as an independent nation; the country now faces an uncomfortable contradiction.
Nigeria @ 66: Mounting Debt, Prosperity Still A Dream
At this point, while government officials celebrate the promise of prosperity, economic reforms and a brighter future, the Federal Government is discussing another $1.5 billion in World Bank loans, even as the nation’s public debt has climbed to an unprecedented ₦166.79 trillion.
The fact is that these trends have continued to trouble many Nigerians.
One of the reasons is that for millions of Nigerians battling rising food prices, transportation costs, unemployment, school fees, healthcare expenses and the relentless pressure of survival, the question is no longer whether Nigeria is independent, but whether independence has delivered the economic freedom and prosperity its citizens were promised and whether the much-anticipated prosperity is finally within reach.
Looking at the story surrounding Nigeria’s transition over the years, the irony, honestly, is difficult to ignore.
Few days ago, the world witnessed Nigeria mark its 66th Independence anniversary on October 1, 2026. The celebration was held under the theme of moving from reforms to prosperity, which appears to negate the people’s lived experience.
President Bola Tinubu, in his Independence Day address, was noticed to have spoken of a nation that had corrected its economic course and was now positioned to translate reforms into shared prosperity.
Meanwhile, an initial development showed that barely days before the anniversary, reports emerged that the Federal Government was discussing three proposed World Bank financing facilities worth $1.5 billion, comprising $500 million each for climate resilience, social protection and early childhood development.
Yes, the truth is that there is nothing inherently wrong with borrowing; hence it is not automatically bad.
Nations, but to state this categorically, not unproductive nations, borrow to build infrastructure, expand productive capacity, strengthen social protection and finance development projects whose benefits extend beyond the present generation.
Nigeria cannot realistically fund all its infrastructure and development needs from current government revenue alone, so note this that borrowing can be a legitimate part of financing development.
To state the fact, borrowing must have a purpose beyond keeping government expenditure afloat. Amongst all, first, it must produce measurable economic returns, improve living conditions and strengthen the capacity of the country to repay.
Otherwise, the nation risks becoming trapped in a cycle where every new loan creates another repayment obligation without sufficiently expanding the productive capacity required to meet it.
This is where Nigeria’s borrowing culture deserves closer scrutiny!!!
According to the Debt Management Office (DMO), Nigeria’s total public debt stood at ₦166.79 trillion as of June 30, 2026, equivalent to approximately $120.93 billion.
DMO further stated that domestic debt accounted for ₦91.59 trillion, representing 54.91 per cent, while external debt stood at N75.20 trillion, or 45.09 percent.
The same Federal Government projection for tomorrow’s prosperity alone accounted for approximately ₦152.77 trillion of the total. Whilst the states and the Federal Capital Territory carried the remaining ₦14.01 trillion.
More concerning and troubling is the direction the country is heading. Public debt increased by ₦7.44 trillion between March and June 2026, representing a 4.7 per cent quarterly increase. Compared with June 2025, the debt stock had expanded by ₦14.39 trillion.
One important fact to note is that these figures are not merely accounting entries. This means they represent obligations that must ultimately be met or executed through public revenue, refinancing or other financing arrangements.
They also raise an essential question about the relationship between the government’s appetite for borrowing and its capacity to generate the revenue needed to service accumulated obligations without continually compromising development expenditure.
However, in a situation like this, the most troubling part of Nigeria’s debt story is that government obligations are growing even as ordinary Nigerians continue to struggle economically beyond their expectations, as it continues to bite harder.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), in June 2026, said poverty had gone up to 63 per cent, according to Nigeria’s poverty line. In the autumn of 2025, 27 million Nigerians had trouble and a very tough time getting enough food.
Meanwhile, behind these statistics are critical, ugly and pathetic pictures of families adjusting meals to accommodate rising food prices, parents struggling with school fees, small-business owners battling operating costs, graduates searching for employment and workers discovering that their earnings no longer stretch as far as they once did.
For these Nigerians, being prosperous in the economy can’t just be about the growth of the country’s GDP, the amount of foreign money the country has, better financial numbers or the trust that big international lenders have.
All of that needs to show up in their income the money they can spend the jobs they have and how good their life is. This means prosperity must be experienced in the marketplace, at the petrol station, in the classroom, in the hospital and in the ability of a household to meet its basic needs without sinking deeper into financial distress.
This is not to dismiss the macroeconomic improvements reported by the government and international institutions. The World Bank acknowledges progress in restoring macroeconomic stability but equally observes that household incomes have yet to recover fully and poverty remains high.
The challenge, therefore, is converting economic stabilisation into tangible improvements in citizens’ livelihoods. And that brings Nigeria to the uncomfortable question of accountability.
This must be taken seriously to ensure that before the government commits the country to additional borrowing, point blank, Nigerians deserve a comprehensive explanation of what previous loans have financed, as well as which projects have been completed, what benefits have been delivered, what obligations remain outstanding and how the investments are contributing to economic productivity.
In addition, the DMO publishes public debt statistics and government borrowing is subject to formal budgetary and institutional processes. But the government must also understand that aggregate debt figures alone do not answer the development question.
At this juncture, citizens need a clearer and better connection between the money borrowed, the projects financed, the outcomes achieved and the obligations inherited, which they are entitled to know.
It must be clear that as a country, we cannot keep using announcements of financing instead of showing real proof that previous financing has brought benefits.
Yes, this is the point where if billions of dollars have been borrowed for infrastructure, Nigerians should be able to identify the completed infrastructure, further assess its quality and also understand its economic contribution.
If loans have supported social protection the government should show how many vulnerable households actually benefited, how well the help was delivered and whether the support made their situation better.
If borrowing has been directed towards agriculture, manufacturing or enterprise development, no doubt, the resulting improvements in productivity, employment and income should be measurable.
This is not an argument against borrowing. It is an argument for borrowing with accountability.
The proposed $1.5 billion World Bank facilities, for instance, are associated with climate resilience, social protection and early childhood development. It would be said that these are legitimate development priorities.
However, the approval and implementation of such projects should be guided and led by clear project assessments, transparent financing terms, measurable targets, defined implementation timelines and also independently verifiable outcomes.
One important aspect that must be adequately addressed is for the government to also confront the fiscal consequences of its borrowing decisions. Domestic debt takes up money that could otherwise be used in the system.
Foreign-currency debt brings risks because changes, in exchange rates can affect how much it costs to pay back. Interest payments and the return of principal use up funds that might have gone to infrastructure, healthcare, education and other important services.
The danger, which is also a challenge, is that Nigeria could find itself borrowing to finance development while simultaneously borrowing to manage the consequences of previous borrowing and this has been a repeated occurrence.
Such a cycle would put pressure on future administrations and taxpayers, especially if the cycle of economic growth and the cycle of revenue mobilisation do not keep up with the cycle of debt obligations.
The answer is not to abandon development financing or reject every loan proposal or altogether reject every proposed loan. In this situation, it is very important to establish a more disciplined borrowing framework in which every proposed facility must demonstrate its economic justification, repayment implications, implementation capacity and expected social returns.
Another part that must be taken into account is that the National Assembly must exercise rigorous oversight over borrowing proposals and their utilization and this must be treated with utmost care.
In addition, the DMO should continue strengthening public disclosure of debt obligations and repayment schedules for the public to be abreast of current issues.
Also, it will be needful for ministries, departments and agencies responsible for loan-funded projects must publish implementation updates and measurable outcomes as at when due.
This is also an integral part of it all as the independent audits should establish whether funds were deployed for their approved purposes and whether the expected benefits materialised.
Above all, the Federal Government must accelerate revenue mobilisation, strengthen expenditure discipline and prioritise investments capable of expanding productive activity rather than perpetuating dependence on new financing.
Nigeria’s 66th Independence anniversary should have been an occasion to reflect not only on the country’s achievements as being touted daily without genuine proof but also on the distance between its founding promise and the lived experiences of its citizens.
The fact remains that independence was never intended to be merely the freedom to govern ourselves but, more importantly it carried the promise of dignity, opportunity, economic self-determination and a better life for succeeding generations.
That promise becomes increasingly difficult to defend when the nation’s financial obligations continue expanding while millions of its people remain trapped in poverty and economic uncertainty.
The government may celebrate reforms, improved economic indicators and renewed international confidence. Those achievements deserve examination on their merits. But the ultimate test of economic policy is whether the ordinary Nigerian is beginning to experience a meaningful improvement in living conditions.
At such an age, 66, Nigeria must move beyond celebrating its capacity to borrow and demonstrate its capacity to build.
Compared to what plays out in other advancing countries, Nigeria does not need a future in which every Independence anniversary is accompanied by another financing proposal and another promise that prosperity is just around the corner.
Clearly, Nigeria needs a development strategy because borrowing should be tied to a clear development strategy that produces tangible benefits for the economy and ordinary citizens.
Currently, the question confronting Nigeria is therefore larger than the proposed $1.5 billion World Bank facilities or the ₦166.79 trillion already recorded in public debt.
Distinctively, it is whether the nation can transform borrowed money into enduring prosperity before the cost of financing its ambitions overwhelms and undermines the very development those ambitions are supposed to deliver.
Six decades! At 66, Nigerians deserve more than independence celebrations and promises of prosperity. They deserve an accounting of the loans already taken, evidence of the development delivered and a credible explanation of why another generation should inherit the bill for a prosperity it has yet to experience.
•Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: blaise.udunze@gmail.com
