Borrowing can support development, but only when transparent financing produces measurable improvements in infrastructure, jobs and essential services.
Public borrowing is not, by itself, evidence of economic failure. Governments borrow to build infrastructure, expand productive capacity, respond to emergencies and finance investments whose benefits may extend across generations. The more important question is whether the money borrowed is converted into assets and services that improve citizens’ lives — and whether the public can see, measure and verify the results.
That question has become increasingly urgent in Nigeria, where debt obligations compete with demands for roads, schools, hospitals, electricity, security and social protection. Citizens are being asked to accept difficult economic choices, yet many communities continue to experience poor public services and infrastructure deficits. The gap between the scale of public finance and the quality of everyday life deserves serious scrutiny.
A recent recap of World Bank data put Nigeria’s total public and private external debt at about $145.02 billion at the end of 2025. That figure must be understood correctly: it covers external debt across public and private borrowers and should not be described as the Federal Government’s debt alone. Even with that distinction, the scale of external obligations underlines the importance of sound debt management, credible reporting and productive use of borrowed funds.
Borrowing becomes defensible when it finances investments capable of generating economic and social returns. A well-designed power project can support businesses, jobs and household welfare. A completed road can lower transport costs, connect farmers to markets and improve access to schools and hospitals. Investments in water, health and education can strengthen human capital and reduce long-term public costs.
But a loan used to finance recurrent consumption, poorly selected projects, abandoned contracts or inflated costs leaves citizens with repayment obligations and little lasting value. The danger is not simply that governments borrow; it is that borrowing may become detached from a transparent development plan and measurable outcomes.
There are also questions about the management of public resources beyond borrowing. Reports during the week highlighted substantial savings by the three tiers of government, while household borrowing and financial pressure remain concerns. Savings and improved revenue mobilisation are welcome, but their public value depends on how they are managed, allocated and accounted for. Citizens need to know whether resources are being used to reduce waste, complete priority projects, strengthen services or build fiscal resilience.
At the state level, Delta Government has reported that it reduced inherited debt from about ₦463 billion to ₦63 billion and is targeting full repayment by the first quarter of 2027. If independently substantiated, such a reduction would be significant. The public should be able to examine the debt profile, the categories of liabilities covered, payments made, sources of funds and any obligations that remain outside the stated figure. Clear documentation would turn a government claim into a verifiable public record.
Debt transparency should not be treated as a technical matter reserved for accountants and economists. It is a democratic requirement. Governments should publish accessible details of borrowing: purpose, amount, interest rate, repayment period, project status, procurement process and expected benefits. They should also report regularly on whether projects are completed, functioning and delivering the outcomes used to justify the loans.
The National Assembly and state legislatures have a responsibility to scrutinise borrowing proposals and monitor implementation, not merely approve requests. Audit institutions should be adequately supported and their findings acted upon. Procurement agencies must enforce open competition and value-for-money standards. Civil society, journalists and professional bodies should have access to reliable information to assess whether public funds are used responsibly.
Citizens should resist the false choice between demanding development and demanding accountability. It is possible to support investment in infrastructure while insisting that contracts are transparent, timelines are respected and contractors are held to account. It is possible to acknowledge fiscal constraints without accepting abandoned projects or unexplained cost variations as inevitable.
Nigeria needs a stronger connection between public finance and public outcomes. Every major borrowing decision should be linked to a clear development objective, a realistic implementation plan and a framework for measuring results. Projects should be prioritised according to economic and social value, not political visibility. Where a project fails, the reasons and responsibilities should be made public.
The test of a government’s financial management is not simply how much it raises, saves or borrows. It is what those resources achieve. Can children learn in safe classrooms? Can patients receive timely care? Can businesses operate with reliable electricity? Can farmers move produce to markets without losing income to bad roads? Can citizens see where public money goes and who is answerable when promises are not fulfilled?
These are the measures by which the development dividend should be judged. Nigeria does not need borrowing without purpose, nor austerity without compassion. It needs disciplined investment, honest accounting and institutions strong enough to ensure that public obligations produce public value.
