The world is gathering in New York for the 81st United Nations General Assembly at a moment when governments face an uncomfortable economic paradox: the pressure to invest in development is rising at the same time as the fiscal room to finance that investment is narrowing. The General Assembly’s high-level week runs from September 22 to 28 under the theme, “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all.”
That global conversation has a direct Nigerian meaning. The International Monetary Fund estimates that global public debt was just under 94 percent of GDP in 2025 and could reach 100 percent by 2029. Its message is not simply that governments should spend less. It is that fiscal policy must become more credible and better sequenced while structural reforms raise productivity and growth potential.
Nigeria enters this conversation with an interesting domestic development. On September 18, the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of Nigeria signed a Memorandum of Understanding designed to institutionalise fiscal-monetary policy coordination. The framework provides for regular consultation, information sharing and joint policy assessment, including coordination around government cash management, debt issuance planning, liquidity forecasting and macroeconomic analysis. It is also intended to improve borrowing and liquidity management while protecting private-sector access to credit.
Four days later, on September 22, the CBN announced a 350-basis-point reduction in the Monetary Policy Rate, from 26.5 percent to 23 percent. But Governor Olayemi Cardoso stressed that the decision should not simply be read as a conventional shift towards monetary easing. He described it as a reset and recalibration intended, among other things, to strengthen monetary-policy transmission and realign the policy rate with prevailing money-market conditions.
Taken together, these developments are more significant than either announcement considered in isolation. Nigeria has begun trying to align the price of money with the management of public finances. The harder question is whether it can align both with the economics of production.
That is where the UNGA 81 paradox becomes relevant to Nigeria.
The country does not simply have a debt problem. It has a revenue-and-productivity problem. The IMF’s 2026 Article IV estimates consolidated government revenue and grants at about 10.8 percent of GDP in 2026, while public gross debt is projected at 35.4 percent of GDP. More strikingly, federal government interest payments are projected to absorb about 53.7 percent of FGN revenue.
These numbers tell an important story. Debt is not necessarily unsustainable merely because its ratio to GDP is high or low. What matters is the government’s capacity to generate revenue, service obligations and still retain enough fiscal space to invest in the infrastructure and institutions that expand future productive capacity.
For Nigeria, that productive capacity remains constrained by what might be called an economy-wide productivity tax. A manufacturer does not experience the economy through the MPR alone. The business experiences the cost of electricity, diesel, transport, logistics, security, imported inputs, port procedures, taxes and levies, regulatory delays, unreliable infrastructure and the cost of financing working capital. A farmer experiences the cost of roads, storage, energy, finance and market access. A technology company experiences broadband, skills, electricity, taxation and access to capital. A small business experiences all of these costs simultaneously, often without the balance sheet to absorb them. This is why cheaper money, although important, cannot by itself make production cheaper.
The September 18 MoU is therefore useful, but its significance should be understood correctly. It addresses a genuine institutional weakness: fiscal and monetary decisions can produce conflicting signals when government borrowing, liquidity management, cash balances and monetary policy are not sufficiently coordinated. The new framework creates a mechanism for regular consultation, shared information and joint assessment rather than leaving coordination excessively dependent on personalities. That is institutional progress.
But coordination is not the same as transformation. The MoU can help the government manage the interaction between borrowing and liquidity. It cannot build a road, stabilise electricity supply, reduce port delays, improve procurement, strengthen tax administration or ensure that capital budgets translate into functioning assets. Nor can a rate cut, by itself, guarantee that banks will extend affordable credit to firms capable of investing productively. The test, therefore, is what happens after the announcements.
If the lower policy rate improves transmission through the financial system, productive businesses should eventually experience some combination of lower financing costs, longer-term credit availability and greater willingness to invest. If fiscal-monetary coordination works, government borrowing should be better integrated with liquidity conditions and should reduce unnecessary competition with private-sector credit. If public spending improves at the same time, infrastructure and public services should begin lowering the cost of production rather than adding to it.
That is the chain Nigeria needs to build. Cheaper money must support investment. Investment must raise productivity. Productivity must create income. Income must broaden revenue. Stronger revenue must create fiscal space for further productive investment.
The reverse cycle is equally important. Weak productivity produces weak incomes and a narrow tax base. Weak revenue increases borrowing dependence. Higher debt-service obligations then reduce fiscal space. Reduced fiscal space constrains productive public investment. Inadequate public investment keeps the cost of doing business high, which suppresses productivity and revenue further.
The real fiscal challenge is therefore not simply to borrow less. It is to make borrowing more productive, raise more domestic revenue and spend public resources in ways that expand the economy’s future capacity to generate income.
This is where fiscal reform must move beyond the language of contraction. Nigeria needs fiscal strengthening, not simply fiscal tightening. That means raising more revenue without unnecessarily damaging productive activity; improving tax administration and compliance; reducing leakages; strengthening budget credibility; improving procurement; and ensuring that capital expenditure actually produces usable infrastructure and public assets.
The IMF’s assessment is instructive here. Its 2026 review noted that Nigeria’s 2025 fiscal deficit was partly offset by under-execution of reported capital expenditure, while also identifying statistical discrepancies and expenditure executed outside approved budgets. It estimated that interest payments absorbed about 53 percent of FGN revenue in 2025. That is not merely an accounting problem. It is a growth problem.
Every naira that must be devoted to debt service is a naira unavailable for another purpose. But the answer is not automatically to reduce spending. The more useful question is whether each major expenditure creates enough economic and social value to justify its fiscal cost.
The same principle should govern borrowing. The relevant question is not simply, “How much did the government borrow?” It is, “What productive capacity did the borrowing create?”
Borrowing that finances infrastructure which lowers logistics costs, improves electricity reliability, expands productive capacity or increases the tax base can alter the future fiscal equation. Borrowing that finances recurrent consumption without creating corresponding economic capacity can deepen the same problem it was intended to solve.
This is why the fiscal-monetary MoU and the CBN’s rate reset should be viewed as the beginning of a policy transmission challenge, not the conclusion of one.
Nigeria has now created a more formal mechanism for fiscal-monetary coordination. It has also recalibrated its monetary-policy framework at a moment of improving macroeconomic conditions. The CBN has reported stronger external buffers, moderating inflation and improved economic activity alongside the rate decision.
But macroeconomic stability should be treated as a platform for structural transformation, not as its substitute.
The next 12 to 18 months should therefore be judged against a practical accountability chain. Are lending conditions actually improving? Is private investment responding? Are firms expanding productive capacity? Are infrastructure and public-service improvements reducing operating costs? Is employment responding to stronger investment? Is domestic revenue broadening as economic activity becomes more productive? And is government borrowing increasingly associated with assets and reforms that expand future fiscal capacity?
These are more meaningful indicators of reform success than the number of policy announcements made.
There is also a deeper institutional lesson. Monetary policy, fiscal policy and structural reform are often discussed as separate domains. In reality, they are three parts of the same economic system. The central bank influences the price and availability of money. The fiscal authorities influence taxation, public spending and borrowing. Government institutions determine whether public resources are converted into infrastructure, services, skills, security and a regulatory environment that allows private capital to become productive. When those three systems pull in different directions, the economy pays the price.
When they reinforce one another, the possibility of a virtuous cycle emerges: lower financial friction supports investment; productive investment raises output and employment; higher incomes broaden the tax base; stronger revenues create fiscal space; and better fiscal space permits more productive public investment. That is the real opportunity behind Nigeria’s recent policy moves.
UNGA 81 is asking the international system to think about restoring trust and managing transformation. For Nigeria, the domestic version of that challenge is more concrete: can the state turn macroeconomic stability into an economy in which producing, investing and creating jobs becomes progressively less costly?
The September 18 MoU gives the government a better mechanism for coordinating fiscal and monetary policy. The September 22 rate reset gives the financial system a new monetary-policy signal. But neither changes the real economy automatically.
The CBN can change the price of money. The government must change the economics of production. The price of money matters, but the cost of producing in Nigeria matters even more. And the weakest point in the policy cycle is often implementation. Understanding the politics of implementation matters too, because reforms succeed not only when they are technically sound, but when the incentives, interests and institutions needed to carry them through are aligned.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
John Onyeukwu, is a lawyer and public policy analyst with interdisciplinary expertise in law, governance, and institutional reform. He holds an LL.B (Hons) from Obafemi Awolowo University, an LL.M from the University of Lagos, and dual master’s degrees in Public Policy from the University of York and Central European University. He also earned a Mini-MBA. John has managed development projects on governance, public finance, civic engagement, and service delivery. He can be reached on john@apexlegal.com.ng
Reflecting on Geometric Power’s laudation of Abia Government