Dangote’s Testimony Vindicates Tinubu’s Reforms, But Nigerians Must Feel the Gains

By Enam Obiosio

I find it difficult to dismiss the significance of the Dangote Group’s public endorsement of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s economic reforms. When one of Nigeria’s largest private-sector investors tells an international audience that policy credibility has helped stabilise an investment worth approximately $17 billion, we must pay attention. We may disagree about the pace and social consequences of the reforms, but we cannot ignore what a major industrial investor is saying about Nigeria’s changing investment climate.

Speaking on Wednesday at the Nigerian Investors’ Forum in Bangkok, Thailand, on the sidelines of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings, Hassan Mahmud, Group Chief Economist of the Dangote Group, delivered a message on behalf of its chairman, Aliko Dangote. His appeal was direct: “Please come into Nigeria, bring your investment.”

Mahmud credited the government’s fiscal and monetary reforms with helping the Dangote Group emerge from a difficult period and achieve greater stability, particularly on the monetary policy front. He identified transparency, policy credibility and incentives associated with operating in an export-free zone as important considerations in the group’s investment decisions.

“The transparency and the credibility we have seen in that has significantly enabled the Dangote Group to have good projections and was able to come out of the woods from its investment of about $17 billion in the refinery,” he said.

Long-term industrial investments cannot be sustained by political promises alone. Investors commit capital when they can make reasonable projections about exchange-rate arrangements, fiscal policy, regulation and operating costs. Unpredictable policies raise financing costs, delay decisions and increase the returns investors demand to compensate for risk. More credible policies give investors a stronger basis for assessing risks and committing capital.

Foreign exchange market changes, petrol subsidy removal and tax reforms were intended, among other objectives, to address structural weaknesses in public finance and economic management.

I believe the crucial distinction is between a reform’s intention and its performance. A policy may be economically defensible in principle and still impose serious costs on households and businesses during implementation. We must evaluate the reforms on two fronts: whether they improve investment conditions and whether they create a credible pathway towards better living standards. The Dangote Group’s experience offers evidence relevant to the first question. It does not, by itself, settle the second.

An investment of approximately $17 billion requires financing, dependable infrastructure, commercially viable operations and a policy environment in which investors can plan without constantly discounting abrupt changes.

Mahmud made this point explicitly: “That cannot happen in an economy where there are no consistencies, where there is no credibility of fiscal and monetary policy, and also the incentives that go with operating in an export-free zone.”

He is not arguing that Nigeria has become risk-free. Rather, credibility and consistency matter enough to influence whether large investments can survive and develop. He added: “You need to be bold, but the boldness comes with credibility of policy and the regulatory reform we have seen.”

A large industrial project does not prove that every related policy is optimal. Corporate interests will not always coincide with those of consumers, workers, competitors or the public treasury. We must examine wider effects without dismissing private-sector testimony.

Perhaps the most consequential part of Mahmud’s intervention was his attempt to position Nigeria as a source of industrial ambition for other African economies.

“Nigeria is now a symbol to other African countries; we just got into Kenya with a $20 billion investment in another refinery. It’s a model that is coming from Nigeria,” he said.

The reference to Kenya represents the group’s account of its investment ambitions; without additional documentation, it should not be treated as proof that a $20 billion refinery investment has been completed or that the full amount has been deployed.

Yet corporate expansion is not automatic national prosperity. We must demand evidence of these outcomes while recognising the value of investment itself.

Many Nigerians continue to face high living costs, expensive energy, inflationary pressures and the consequences of adjustments in fuel prices and foreign-exchange arrangements. For these households, an improved investment narrative is not sufficient compensation for declining purchasing power or difficulty meeting basic expenses. Investor confidence cannot substitute for examining ordinary citizens’ economic conditions.

International institutions have welcomed the reforms’ potential to improve fiscal sustainability, but the transition has also generated hardship. Both realities matter.

It would be an analytical error to assume that because a major industrial group has benefited from improved policy credibility, households and smaller enterprises are experiencing equivalent gains.

Large industrial companies may access financing, export opportunities and scale efficiencies unavailable to smaller businesses. Households cannot diversify away the immediate costs of transport, food and electricity.

We therefore need a stronger bridge between macroeconomic stabilisation and household welfare: productive employment, reliable infrastructure, affordable financing for smaller enterprises, effective competition and policies that reduce the cost of doing business. The test of reform is not whether investors praise it at international meetings. It is whether credible policies generate enough productive activity to improve incomes, widen opportunities and reduce vulnerability.

Nigeria’s Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, welcomed the Dangote Group’s endorsement as evidence of the government’s readiness for business.

“Dangote Group, thank you for sharing your testimony. I think the best way to demonstrate that we’re indeed ready for business is to have investors who are already with us give their testimonies,” he said.

Oyedele’s response shows the value of investor testimony, which is more concrete than official assurances alone. But government must demonstrate whether reforms attract investment, improve output, support exports, create jobs and strengthen supply chains.

It should also explain how stabilisation will benefit households and smaller businesses. For the reforms to command durable public confidence, Nigerians need a visible connection between the sacrifices demanded of them and the opportunities created by economic restructuring.

The Dangote Group’s endorsement is significant because it comes from a major investor with substantial capital committed to Nigeria. It does not mean every reform has succeeded, every investor will achieve comparable results, or social costs can be ignored.

We should therefore treat the endorsement as meaningful evidence, not a final verdict: its value will be established by sustained investment, transparent results and improvements that citizens can actually experience directly.

My conclusion is straightforward: President Tinubu’s reforms should be judged neither by political loyalty nor hostility, but by evidence. We should acknowledge improvements where demonstrated, question outcomes where evidence is incomplete, and demand corrective action where citizens continue to bear excessive costs.

Nigeria needs investment, but investment must serve national development. We need businesses that can compete, industries that can produce, workers who can earn decent incomes and households that can afford essential goods and services.

Dangote’s message in Bangkok offers a reason to take Nigeria’s investment prospects seriously. Our task is to ensure that the credibility investors seek becomes the foundation for broader economic opportunity.

We must make Nigeria investable for capital, workable for businesses and liveable for Nigerians.

Enam Obiosio is a public relations and investor relations practitioner and journalist with experience in arts and business journalism, with expertise spanning financial markets, economic policy, infrastructure, corporate communications, and the creative economy.