By Blaise Udunze

Nigeria is no longer flirting with deficit financing. As a country, it is living with it, not occasionally but structurally, routinely, almost comfortably. It became evident when the National Assembly rose to defend the proposed N25.91 trillion deficit in the N58.47 trillion 2026 budget that it did more than justify another year of borrowing. It normalised it. Again, the message had been clearly defined that deficit financing is no longer a temporary response to shocks; it is now a structural feature of Nigeria’s fiscal architecture.

President Bola Tinubu

This was confirmed by the Senate, which, led by Senator Solomon Adeola, who defended continued borrowing as inevitable. In agreement with his defence, Senator Olamilekan Adeola argued that borrowing is inevitable in the face of unpredictable revenue and vast development needs. He is not wrong. No modern economy runs without deficits. The United States borrows. European economies borrow. Even fast-growing Asian Economies have used deficits strategically.

The real issue, as Adeola himself admitted, is how Nigeria borrows and what it borrows for.

That is where the debate becomes uncomfortable. Looking at it objectively, in a plain calculation, almost half of what the federal government hopes to earn will go straight to creditors. The chronic issue is that Nigeria’s projected revenue for 2026 stands at N33.19 trillion, while expenditure is estimated at N58.47 trillion, leaving a yawning gap of over N25 trillion. Debt service alone is expected to gulp nearly N15.9 trillion. In other words, before roads are built, before hospitals are equipped, before schools are renovated, almost half of the projected revenue is already committed to servicing yesterday’s loans.

Of paramount concern is that the action being discussed does not serve as a policy that supports the economy; it is a counter-cyclical stimulus during downtime to stabilise growth. It is a structural dependence. This is to say that at the core of Nigeria’s deficit dilemma lies revenue weakness. Despite the much-touted diversification of the economy, the country remains heavily dependent on crude oil for foreign exchange and for a significant share of public revenue. The fearful part is that when oil prices fall, when production drops due to theft or quotas, or when global demand weakens, government revenue collapses. Expenditure, however, does not fall with oil prices. Salaries must be paid. Pensions must be honoured. Political offices must function. Debt must be serviced. Borrowing fills the gap.

Beyond oil, the non-oil tax base remains shallow. Nigeria’s tax-to-GDP ratio lags far behind peer economies. One of the challenges is that, as a vast informal sector, weak tax administration, compliance gaps, waivers, and leakages mean that even in years of non-oil growth, revenue does not rise proportionately. One truth the country must yield to is the advice of Minister of Finance, Wale Edun, who rightly warned that Nigeria must reduce its dependence on debt and build a stronger domestic revenue base. This stems from his understanding that in a world of high global interest rates and retreating multilateral support, borrowing is becoming more expensive and less forgiving. Yet the borrowing continues.

One troubling fact from the disclosure of the Debt Management Office, is not that Nigeria’s public debt stood at over N152 trillion by mid-2025 but it is projected to climb further. What makes this figure more of a trouble is not just its size, but its purpose. Historically, Nigeria once escaped the weight of unsustainable debt through the Paris Club exit negotiated under President Olusegun Obasanjo. Two decades later, the country finds itself in a far more complex web of domestic and external obligations. The question is simple in the sense of what has the borrowing built?

If deficits finance productive infrastructure that expands the economy’s capacity, power plants that reduce production costs, rail lines that ease logistics, digital infrastructure that boosts exports, then borrowing can be justified. Future growth will expand the tax base and service the debt. Hence, it will be agreed that deficits, in that scenario, become bridges to prosperity.

But if deficits finance recurrent expenditure, salaries, overheads, fuel subsidies, political patronage, interest payments, then borrowing becomes a treadmill. The country runs harder each year, yet moves nowhere.

Nigeria’s fiscal pattern increasingly resembles the latter. Recurrent expenditure consumes a significant portion of revenue. In some years, debt service has exceeded the federal government’s retained revenue. This forces further borrowing simply to keep government machinery running. Borrowing to service old debt is the classic signature of a fiscal trap.

Meanwhile, the crowding-out effect is becoming pronounced. With the government aggressively issuing domestic debt instruments, over 70 percent of risk assets in the financial system are reportedly tied to government securities. Banks prefer lending to the government at high yields rather than financing private businesses. Lending rates, influenced by a high monetary policy rate, hover between 35 and 40 percent. For manufacturers, farmers, and tech entrepreneurs, such rates are prohibitive.

In effect, the state is absorbing liquidity that could otherwise power private-sector growth. The engine of sustainable revenue, the productive economy, is being starved.

Supporters of the current approach argue that deficits are necessary to close Nigeria’s massive infrastructure gap. Contrary to their argument, the roads are dilapidated. Power supply remains unreliable. Security spending has ballooned in response to persistent threats. With a fast-growing population, social spending pressures are immense. In such a context, refusing to borrow would mean freezing development.

That argument carries weight. Nigeria cannot austerity its way to prosperity. While slashing expenditure indiscriminately could worsen unemployment and deepen poverty.

However, borrowing without institutional reform is a lot more dangerous. Economist Adi Bongo has warned that asset sales, privatisations, and new borrowing will fail without strong oversight and accountability. Nigeria’s history of public-private partnerships and sectoral reforms, particularly in the power sector, offers cautionary tales. Assets sold to politically connected entities without capacity did not deliver efficiency gains. Institutions were created but not empowered. Data was published but not interrogated. Borrowing into weak institutions is like pouring water into a leaking basket.

There is also the issue of political budgeting. Election cycles often bring expanded spending and proliferating projects. Revenue does not necessarily rise in tandem. Structural deficits become politically convenient. Once normalised, they are difficult to reverse.

The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, who recently framed the 2026 budget as a “moral document,” said it must therefore be judged not by its size, but by its outcomes. The question that should follow such a comment is, will the N26 trillion capital allocation translate into completed roads, functional health centres, and reliable electricity? Or will delayed releases, procurement bottlenecks, and weak oversight roll projects into yet another fiscal year?

Nigeria’s history of overlapping budgets and low capital implementation rates raises legitimate skepticism. Economists have cautioned that attempting to execute multiple large budgets concurrently strains administrative capacity and encourages rushed, low-value spending. When execution falters, the borrowed funds do not generate returns. Yet the interest meter keeps running.

Subsidy reform illustrates both the promise and the risk. The removal of fuel subsidy under President Bola Tinubu was described as a turning point, which was commended by an international organisation. In theory, eliminating subsidies should free fiscal space for productive investment like infrastructure, health, or education, as expected. But transparency in how those savings are redeployed remains crucial, especially in how the subsidy removal is being used. The truth remains that trust erodes if citizens do not see tangible improvements in infrastructure and services to showcase how the money realized from subsidies is being expended. Compliance weakens because once trust and fairness decline, people will easily default or be less willing to obey rules (like paying taxes or following regulations). Revenue mobilisation becomes harder. Trust is the invisible currency of fiscal reform.

Exchange rate pressures add another layer of complexity. When the naira weakens, external debt servicing costs rise in local currency terms. Import-related spending increases. Even if reserves appear strong, they are not freely spendable funds; they are buffers against external shocks. Mistaking reserves for budgetary liquidity is a dangerous illusion.

The global context is also less forgiving. Developing countries now pay far more in debt service than they receive in aid. Capital flows are volatile. In such an environment, fiscal discipline is not optional; it is survival.

So, are Nigeria’s deficits building future revenue capacity or merely financing present consumption?

The evidence is mixed, but the tilt is worrying. There are genuine reform efforts underway, such as tax administration overhaul, digitised revenue monitoring, electricity sector reforms, and efforts to attract capital importation. There are signs of macroeconomic stabilization that are moderating inflation, improving reserves, and modest GDP growth. These are not trivial.

Yet the scale and persistence of deficits, the heavy burden of debt service, the crowding-out of private credit, and the lack of transparency around execution suggest that borrowing is increasingly funding continuity rather than transformation or driving meaningful structural change.

Deficit financing becomes a growth strategy only when three conditions are met, such as when borrowed funds are channeled into productivity-enhancing investments (such as infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, education, and these things must expand the economy’s capacity to produce); institutions ensure transparency and value for money; and economic growth outpaces debt accumulation, so the country can comfortably service and repay what it has borrowed. When those conditions weaken, deficits mutate into a fiscal trap.

Nigeria stands at that junction. The Senate is right that borrowing in itself is not evil. But normalising structural deficits without tightening or simultaneously enforcing expenditure discipline, expanding revenue beyond oil, strengthening institutions, and reducing the cost of governance, then the country is taking a significant risk.

A nation can borrow to build bridges. Or it can borrow to pay salaries. The former compounds growth. The latter compounds debt.

If Nigeria’s deficits do not translate into visible infrastructure, expanded industrial capacity, thriving private enterprise, and rising tax revenues, history will record this era not as bold reform, but as deferred reckoning.

Deficits are not destiny. But when they become routine, they stop being temporary tools, unexamined, and politically convenient; they shape the destinies of Nigerians. From today, as a sovereign nation, Nigeria must decide whether it is borrowing to survive the present or to secure the future. The choice Nigeria makes about how it uses deficit financing will determine whether it becomes a growth ladder or locks it into a worsening cycle of debt that becomes harder and more expensive to escape over time, while it grows costlier each year.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]

Kayode Egbetokun, inspector-general of Police (IGP), has declared Nigeria’s banking industry a strategic national asset, ordering an immediate intelligence-led crackdown on cybercriminal networks, insider facilitators, and transnational financial crime syndicates threatening the stability of the financial system.

Kayode Egbetokun, inspector-general of Police (IGP),

Speaking at a strategic meeting with the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN) and the Body of Bank Chief Executive Officers in Lagos, where he said the Nigeria Police Force was shifting from reactive policing to proactive dismantling of organised criminal structures targeting banks.

According to him, the financial sector remains central to national stability.

He said: “The Nigerian banking industry is not merely a driver of economic activity; it is a core component of our national stability architecture. The integrity, continuity, and resilience of the financial system are directly linked to public confidence, investor perception, and the credibility of Nigeria’s economic governance.”

In a major policy shift, Egbetokun announced that regular police officers would no longer be deployed for routine cash-in-transit escorts or non-essential VIP protective duties within the private sector.

He explained that the decision aligned with national policy direction and manpower optimisation within the Force, adding that the traditional model of conventional police deployment for banking sector protection was being reviewed and progressively restructured.

“This policy adjustment is not designed to diminish the security framework supporting the banking industry. Rather, it reflects a deliberate transition towards a more sustainable, professional, and institutionally governed model of security support,” he said.

Egbetokun warned that conventional risks such as armed robbery and cash-in-transit vulnerabilities, though still present, have been overtaken by more complex and technologically sophisticated threats.

“These threats are adaptive, technologically sophisticated, and often coordinated across borders. They include cyber-enabled fraud, identity compromise, insider facilitation, organised financial crime, and illicit financial flows,” he told the bankers.

The IGP stressed that disruptions to banking operations now carry international reputational consequences, citing global compliance standards set by the Financial Action Task Force FATF and Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations.

He said: “In an era shaped by FATF standards, AML/CFT obligations, and heightened scrutiny of financial flows, the strength of a nation’s enforcement and security architecture is now directly relevant to investor confidence and market stability.”

The police noted that: “The speed and sophistication of cyber-enabled fraud illustrate the urgency of integration. Delayed reporting windows can render enforcement ineffective, while rapid escalation, evidence preservation, and coordinated response can significantly improve disruption, recovery, and prosecution outcomes.

“Modern financial crime operates at a pace that requires equally modern security coordination.”

Egbetokun disclosed that the Force had already intensified covert operations targeting kidnapping syndicates, illegal arms networks, and organised criminal enterprises whose activities threaten commercial stability.

He added that the Police were strengthening coordination with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC),  the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to ensure that criminal enterprises do not exploit gaps between enforcement, compliance, and oversight.

The IGP told the bankers that sustainable security cannot be achieved through episodic contact or fragmented interventions, calling for structured cooperation between law enforcement and financial institutions.

“Security is not merely the absence of crime; it is the presence of stability that enables productivity, investment, and growth. A secure banking environment supports savings mobilisation, credit expansion, financial inclusion, and the confidence of both domestic and international investors.

“When citizens trust financial institutions, participation in the formal economy increases. When investors perceive a stable internal security environment supported by credible enforcement, Nigeria becomes more bankable, more investable, and more competitive.

“The outcome of this meeting should not be limited to dialogue. It should produce structured liaison mechanisms between law enforcement and the banking sector, clear operational protocols for high-risk areas, joint capacity building, and lawful information-sharing.

“The Nigeria Police Force stands ready to work with the banking sector not merely as an enforcement institution, but as a strategic partner in safeguarding the integrity, stability, and international credibility of Nigeria’s financial architecture,” he said.

Earlier in his remarks, Oliver Alawuba, chairman of the Body of Bank Chief Executive Officers,  who acknowledged the Police boss for measures put in place to tackle insecurity in the country, highlighted the banking industry’s past support.

He said: “The Bankers’ Committee was responsible for the renovation of over 42 police stations that were destroyed during the EndSARS protests. We stepped in when police infrastructure was in ruins. Today, we expect that same urgency when our own infrastructure is under digital siege.”

Professor Pius Olarenwaju, president,  CIBN, on his part, painted a grim picture of an industry under silent assault, warning that the velocity of cyberattacks now outstrips the response capacity of traditional law enforcement.

“The banking sector plays a pivotal role in Nigeria’s economic development, and our critical functions can only flourish in a secure and stable environment. But we are fighting a war where the enemy no longer carries guns , they carry laptops and exploit system vulnerabilities in milliseconds,” he told the IGP.

Olarenwaju further stressed that the rapid digital transformation of financial services has created a security paradox.

“As we deepen financial inclusion and expand digital channels, we also expand the attack surface for cybercriminals. The same technology that empowers the unbanked also empowers fraudsters operating from jurisdictions where Nigerian law enforcement has no reach. This is the new reality, and we need the police to evolve with it,” he said.

Present at the occasion were Managing Directors and Chief Executive Officers of banks such as Union Bank, Signature Bank, Parallex Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Keystone Bank, Coronation Merchant Bank, Guaranty Trust Bank, United Bank for Africa, among others.

Following a landmark 21-year career in institutional finance, Rashidat Adebisi, the former Executive Director at AXA Mansard, has officially launched “The Re-Architecture Project.”

This strategic pivot aims to align Nigeria’s insurance and financial infrastructure with the federal government’s ambitious $1 trillion economy goal, positioning the sector as a critical driver of macro-economic stability.

As Nigeria navigates the complexities of the Nigeria Insurance Industry Reform Act (NIIRA 2025), Adebisi identifies this moment as a “watershed” for the industry.

She argues that the path to a trillion-dollar economy requires more than just capital, it demands a total re-architecture of how financial systems interact with the informal economy, which currently accounts for over 60% of employment in Africa.

Macro-Economic Resilience as a National Imperative

The Re-Architecture Project reframes insurance from a transactional product into the “secret sauce” of a resilient economy.

Adebisi asserts that for Nigeria to achieve its macro-economic targets, the insurance industry must bridge the massive “protection gap,” as penetration currently remains below 3% across many African markets.

Insurance as an Economic Safety Net: “Insurance is the net that allows a nation to jump higher,” Adebisi stated.

She emphasizes that every decimal point in a financial model represents a business stabilized and a future secured, providing the essential foundation for macro-economic growth.

Infrastructure Beyond Capital: The project posits that Nigeria is not lacking capital but “invisible infrastructure”, specifically Trust, Access, and Regulatory Clarity.

NIIRA 2025: From Compliance to Competitive Advantage

Adebisi describes NIIRA 2025 as a vital structural reinforcement rather than regulatory friction. The Act’s focus on Capital Recalibration, Stronger Governance, and Consumer Protection is essential for building the institutional rigour required to support a $1 trillion GDP.

Recalibrating Foundations: The reform represents a necessary recalibration of the industry’s foundations while accelerating digital transformation.

Strategic Policy Fluency: “Those who view compliance as a burden will struggle; those who see it as a competitive advantage will thrive,” Adebisi noted, identifying policy fluency as a core leadership competency for the next decade.

Economic Visibility: Integrating the Informal Sector

A central pillar of the project is “Engineering Inclusive Ecosystems,” exemplified by the FileAm App. This initiative reimagines tax compliance as a digital utility for SMEs and informal entrepreneurs, moving them from economic invisibility into formal digital tax rails, insurance coverage, and credit ecosystems.

The Wealth Pipeline: By building digital identity and verifiable credentials, the project aims to turn compliance into credit history, and credit history into the capital access required for intergenerational wealth creation.

As a Financial Systems Architect, Adebisi’s blueprint for the next decade is governed by a singular core rule: Data-aware. Policy-conscious. Africa-focused.. The project calls on industry leaders and policymakers to move beyond incremental adoption toward designing interoperable ecosystems that can sustain the Africa of tomorrow.

“The future of finance in Africa will not be inherited. It will be architected,” Adebisi concluded. “It is our turn to build.”.