All The NewsCover StoryEconomyOpinion

Tax Revenue Follows Economic Growth, Not Vice Versa: Lessons from the Obasanjo-Atiku Era for President Tinubu

4 Mins read

 

By Kunle Oshobi

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s controversial tax reform bills have dominated national discourse in recent weeks, with the administration emphasizing increased revenue collection as the pathway to national development. While the President frequently touts his record of increasing Lagos State’s internally generated revenue during his tenure as governor (1999-2007), there is a crucial element of that success story he consistently omits: the national economic boom engineered by the Obasanjo-Atiku administration, which created the foundation for revenue growth across Nigeria, particularly in Lagos as the nation’s commercial hub.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Lagos’s Revenue Growth

Between 1999 and 2007, Lagos State’s IGR grew from approximately N14.6 billion annually to N83 billion, a remarkable increase that President Tinubu rightly celebrates. However, this growth did not occur in a vacuum. During this same period, Nigeria was experiencing its fastest economic growth since independence, with GDP expanding rapidly and the economy becoming one of the fastest-growing in Africa and the world.

At the helm of this economic transformation was Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who served as Chairman of the National Economic Council, the constitutional body responsible for coordinating economic policy across the federation. Under his leadership, and working alongside President Obasanjo, the administration implemented comprehensive reforms that liberalized key sectors, privatized moribund state enterprises, recapitalized the banking sector, revolutionized telecommunications, established pension reforms, and attracted unprecedented foreign investment, amongst several other policies that stimulated economic growth.

The Real Driver of Revenue Growth

The inconvenient reality is that over 70% of Lagos State’s IGR derives from personal income tax paid by workers resident in the state. As the Obasanjo-Atiku administration’s economic policies stimulated rapid growth in employment, business formation, and private sector expansion, Lagos, as Nigeria’s commercial nerve center, naturally became the primary beneficiary. Companies expanded, new businesses emerged, jobs multiplied, and with them came increased tax revenues.

The telecommunications revolution alone, which saw mobile phone lines grow from 400,000 in 1999 to over 100 million by 2007, created hundreds of thousands of jobs. The banking sector recapitalization transformed Nigerian banks into regional powerhouses, generating employment and economic activity concentrated largely in Lagos. Privatization of public enterprises injected efficiency into the economy and freed up capital for productive investment. The negotiated debt relief that reduced Nigeria’s external debt from $35 billion to manageable levels improved the nation’s credit rating and attracted foreign investment.

These were not Lagos State initiatives. These were federal government policies championed by the National Economic Council under Atiku Abubakar’s chairmanship, and they created the rising economic tide that lifted Lagos’s revenue boat along with boats across Nigeria.

The Irony of Current Policy Direction

Today, as President of Nigeria, Tinubu faces an economy battered by high inflation, massive unemployment, currency devaluation, and widespread poverty. Yet rather than focusing primarily on growth-oriented economic reforms similar to those that indirectly benefited his Lagos administration, his government has prioritized aggressive revenue extraction through controversial tax reforms.
The irony is profound: Tinubu credits himself for Lagos’s revenue success while ignoring that it was built on the foundation of national economic growth policies led by his current political rival, Atiku Abubakar. Now, rather than emulating that growth-first approach, his administration pursues a taxation-first strategy at a time when Nigerians are least able to bear additional burdens.

Tax Revenue Follows Economic Growth, Not Vice Versa

Economic history demonstrates repeatedly that sustainable revenue growth follows from economic expansion, not aggressive taxation of a stagnant economy. When businesses thrive, when employment increases, when incomes rise, tax revenues naturally follow. Company income taxes increase as businesses become profitable. Personal income taxes grow as more people find employment and existing workers earn better wages. Value-added tax revenues expand as consumption increases with rising prosperity.

The Obasanjo-Atiku era proves this point conclusively. By focusing on:
• Creating an enabling environment for business
• Attracting foreign investment through sound macroeconomic policies
• Liberalizing critical sectors
• Building institutions to fight corruption
• Investing in infrastructure
• Reforming the financial sector
They achieved both economic growth and increased government revenues. Lagos State collected more taxes not primarily because of better collection mechanisms, but because there were more economically active people and businesses to tax.

Lessons President Tinubu Must learn
President Tinubu should look beyond partisan politics to recognize what truly drove Nigeria’s economic success during his tenure as Lagos governor. Atiku Abubakar, as Chairman of the National Economic Council, played the leading role in implementing the economic policies that created jobs, stimulated growth, and consequently generated the tax revenues Lagos collected.

If Tinubu genuinely wants to replicate Lagos’s revenue success at the federal level, he must first replicate the growth-oriented economic policies of the Obasanjo-Atiku era. This means:

1. Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Revenue Extraction Focus on creating an enabling environment for businesses to thrive, rather than imposing additional tax burdens on an already struggling population.

2. Implementing Structural Reforms Invest in infrastructure, power, transportation, and telecommunications to reduce the cost of doing business and enhance productivity.

3. Attracting Investment Create stable macroeconomic conditions, ensure policy consistency, and build investor confidence to attract both domestic and foreign capital.

4. Building Productive Capacity Support agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors to create employment and increase the productive base of the economy.

5. Fighting Corruption Through Institutions Strengthen anti-corruption agencies and ensure transparent, accountable governance that gives citizens confidence in government.

6. Liberalizing Key Sectors Open up sectors monopolized by inefficient state actors to private sector competition and innovation.

The Path Forward

Nigeria’s current economic challenges require a growth-first approach, not a taxation-first strategy. The tax reform bills, regardless of their technical merits, arrive at a moment when millions of Nigerians are struggling with unprecedented economic hardship. Imposing additional burdens on citizens and businesses now risks stifling the very economic activity needed to generate sustainable revenue growth.

President Tinubu should demonstrate the humility to learn from the success of his predecessors, even his political rivals. Atiku Abubakar’s chairmanship of the National Economic Council during Nigeria’s fastest economic growth period offers a blueprint for sustainable revenue generation through economic expansion.
The lesson is clear: grow the economy first, and tax revenues will follow. Tax an impoverished population aggressively, and you deepen poverty while strangling growth.

If President Tinubu truly wants to be remembered as the leader who transformed Nigeria’s economy, he should borrow a leaf from the Obasanjo-Atiku playbook and focus his considerable political capital on policies that expand the economic pie, rather than extracting bigger slices from an already diminished pie.

The choice is his: will he pursue the proven path of growth-driven revenue expansion, or persist with the politically expedient but economically counterproductive approach of taxing hardship? Nigeria’s future prosperity hangs in the balance.

  • Kunle Oshobi is the Head of Strategy and Planning of The Narrative Force

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com