By
Dr. Ola Olateju
Celebrating Reform, Ignoring Ruin
The International Monetary Fund’s recent comments on Nigeria’s economic situation are a masterclass in hypocrisy and double-speak. On April 17, 2025, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), through its Communications Officer, Mr. Daniel Leigh on one hand, applaud “important steps taken by the federal government to stabilise the economy, enhance resilience, and support growth, ” while on the other, the Fund admits—with a straight face—that poverty and food insecurity remain high, and the reforms have not benefited Nigerians. This is an astonishing contradiction. If reforms are working, why are 129 million Nigerians (63%) poor? (National Bureau of Statistics, 2022). This is the crocodile tear diplomacy of an institution that has historically fed off the economic misery of the Global South, Nigeria in particular.
This is not an honest economic assessment of the Nigerian situation. It is a polished hypocrisy and policy endorsement driven not by concern for Nigerian welfare, but by adherence to neoliberal dogma. The IMF is not a neutral financial advisor—it is a strategic actor in global economic politics, shaping peripheral economies to serve the interests of financial capitalism under the guise of “stabilization. ”
Let us call a spade a spade, the IMF is not a development partner—it is a structural saboteur. For decades, Nigeria has swallowed bitter IMF pills—currency devaluation, fuel subsidy removal, austerity measures, and monetarist orthodoxy—all in the name of “economic reforms” that enrich elites and disempower the masses. These policies were never designed to foster indigenous development or economic sovereignty. They were designed to create a dependent, extractive, and externally dictated economy.
Nigeria’s entanglement with the IMF dates back to the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) of 1986, imposed during General Babangida’s military regime. Under SAP, Nigeria was coerced into devaluing its currency, removing subsidies, liberalizing trade, and reducing government expenditure. The result? Mass layoffs, social unrest, closure of industries, and deepened poverty (Amin, 1997; Olukoshi, 2006).
Today, Nigeria is witnessing the most severe cost-of-living crisis in a generation. Over 129 million people are in poverty, yet the IMF still has the audacity to praise reforms that deepen social suffering. What exactly is “resilience” when the people are starving?The IMF’s recent statement reeks of dangerous double-speak and polished deception. It praises Tinubu’s economic reforms as “important steps” while acknowledging—almost in passing—that poverty and food insecurity remain alarmingly high. What a hypocritical contradiction! How can reforms that “stabilize” the economy leave over several million Nigerians in poverty, with inflation choking survival and food insecurity rising like wildfire? This is not economic healing—it’s economic haemorrhaging.
Let it be clear: the IMF is not a development partner to Nigeria—it is a systemic parasite, disguised in financial jargon that engineers economic dependency under the guise of reform. For decades, Nigeria has danced to the IMF’s bitter tune such as liberalize your currency, remove subsidies, cut social spending, and stop ‘overreliance’ on the public sector. The outcome? Mass suffering, national currency in free fall, and a budget enslaved to debt servicing instead of development.
Their so-called “commendation” of Tinubu’s reforms is no compliment—it is the IMF applauding itself for successfully imposing their neoliberal orthodoxy once again. And when the catastrophic results become undeniable, they retreat to their familiar excuse: “the gains have yet to reach the people. ” This is deliberate deceit. You cannot set fire to a house and claim credit for building a fence around the ashes.
This duplicity is why Nigeria must break free from the IMF’s neo-colonial clutch. The country cannot reform itself into prosperity using frameworks that were never designed with its interests in mind.
The IMF’s ideological assumption was that markets—if freed from state interference—would correct themselves and generate growth. Instead, Nigeria became a dependent debtor nation, with increased external vulnerability, food insecurity, and weakened public infrastructure (Mkandawire&Soludo, 1999).
From SAP to today’s policies, the same prescriptions have been repackaged:
- Fuel subsidy removal—lauded as necessary reform, but followed by a 233% increase in transportation costs and a rising food inflation rate of 35. 4% (NBS, 2024).
- Floating the naira—presented as market realism, but leading to over 300% devaluation in 12 months, skyrocketing import costs, and destroying savings (World Bank, 2024).
- Cuts in public spending—justified as efficiency, but resulting in deteriorating education, healthcare, and public wages.
The IMF praises these reforms because they advance its ideological agenda. But for Nigerians, these reforms are economic violence, not recovery.
The Myth of IMF Objectivity: A Weapon of Financial Imperialism
Contrary to its claims of impartiality, the IMF is a geopolitical tool serving the interests of powerful creditor nations and global finance. Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, observed that the IMF’s policies often reflect the political and economic interests of its largest shareholder—the United States—not the needs of borrowing countries (Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents, 2002).
The IMF’s emphasis on fiscal austerity and market liberalization creates conditions where:
- Transnational corporations gain easy access to national resources.
- Local industries collapse under imported competition.
- The public sector becomes too weak to redistribute wealth.
This is not support. This is systemic sabotage masquerading as economic advice
Speconomy: The Pathway to Economic Freedom
The way forward is not more IMF-induced “adjustments. ” It is Speconomy—a model rooted in collaborative economics, where the state, private sector, and local communities co-create a balanced system that prioritizes local capacity, communal ownership, social protection, and production-oriented policies. Speconomy redefines wealth generation by embedding community in market activities and ensuring public investment supports local productivity—not foreign debt servicing.
Until Nigeria replaces IMF prescriptions with indigenous, inclusive frameworks like Speconomy, it will remain a pawn in a global game of dependency. The time for liberation is now—not through more IMF visits and fiscal experiments, but through a sovereign economic reimagination grounded in our realities, our people, and our priorities.
Nigeria must summon the courage to break free from IMF’s economic imperialism. The answer is not in repeating foreign prescriptions but in reclaiming our economic destiny through Speconomy—a model that enshrines strategic synergy between the public sector, private enterprise, and local communities. Speconomy does not reject markets—but it places markets under the direction of national purpose and collective wellbeing.
Under Speconomy:
- The state becomes a productive player, not just a regulator.
- The private sector is incentivized to align with national development goals, not just profit.
- Communities become co-owners in localized enterprises, ensuring inclusive growth.
Speconomy does not wait for “trickle-down benefits”—it engineers bottom-up prosperity. It is the antidote to the IMF’s top-down tyranny. The IMF is not Nigeria’s doctor—it is the disease. Speconomy is the cure.
Conclusion: Break the Chains
The truth is plain. IMF policies are the architects of Nigeria’s underdevelopment. Every structural adjustment, every subsidy removal, every fiscal squeeze, every privatization drive—all these bear the fingerprints of IMF conditionalities. These policies are not just anti-poor—they are anti-sovereign. They strip the state of its developmental role, handing over public welfare to invisible market forces and foreign interests. It is not reform—it is recolonization through finance.
Nigeria cannot reform itself into prosperity with the IMF breathing down its neck. What the country needs is a rupture—a bold economic re-imagination grounded in our realities, not in the spreadsheet hallucinations of Washington-based technocrats. The time to liberate our economy is now. And Speconomy is the battle plan.
Let the IMF keep its praise—we don’t need their approval. We need our people fed, housed, employed, and dignified. Until Nigeria expels the IMF from its economic psyche, we will remain a rich nation populated by the poor, governed by the manipulated, and managed by the complicit.
History will not be kind to collaborators.
Rejoinder to “IMF’s Hypocrisy And Nigeria’s Economic Captivity: Time for Speconomy Liberation”
The article by Dr. Ola Olateji presents a passionate critique of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) role in Nigeria’s economic situation and proposes “Speconomy” as a model and pathway to liberation. While it raises legitimate concerns about the consequences of neoliberal policies and the perceived external manipulation of Nigeria’s economy, it offers prescriptions that require closer scrutiny.
First, the article falls short in clarifying the conceptual foundation and operational strategy of the so-called “Speconomy.” It is essential to ask: What exactly does the Speconomy entail in practical economic terms? Is it a centrally planned model, a populist economic model, or a return to import-substitution industrialization? Without rigorous definition and tested policy frameworks, such ideological proposals risk remaining rhetorical rather than actionable.
Second, while the article rightly critiques IMF-imposed austerity measures, it fails to acknowledge Nigeria’s internal policy inconsistencies, corruption, and weak institutional framework as root causes of economic underperformance. Shouldn’t we ask why, despite receiving multiple rounds of debt relief and foreign aid, Nigeria has failed to diversify its economy or develop a sustainable industrial base? Blaming external actors without introspection deflects attention from domestic failures.
Third, the article romanticizes economic nationalism without engaging with the realities of global interdependence. Can Nigeria truly isolate itself from international capital flows and trade agreements without damaging its already fragile economic structure? For a country that imports a large share of its consumption and manufacturing inputs, economic self-reliance is a long-term aspiration, not an immediate solution.
Moreover, the call to reject the IMF must be backed by credible alternatives for fiscal discipline, inflation control, and investor confidence. What viable mechanisms are in place to ensure macroeconomic stability outside multilateral frameworks? The suggestion that national ownership of economic strategy alone guarantees success ignores the complexities of fiscal and monetary governance.
Finally, the article lacks empirical evidence to support the claims that rejecting IMF recommendations would automatically lead to economic liberation. Countries that have successfully transitioned from IMF dependency—like South Korea or Chile—did so with disciplined reform, export-led growth, and strategic investment, not ideological declarations.
In sum, while the article underscores important criticisms of neoliberalism and foreign dominance, its prescriptions require clearer articulation, institutional realism, and empirical grounding. Nigeria needs a sober, evidence-based development framework that balances national interests with global economic realities, not an ideological manifesto.
Dear Dr. Asuquo,
Thank you for engaging critically with my article “IMF’s Hypocrisy and Nigeria’s Economic Captivity: Time for Speconomy Liberation.” I appreciate your thoughtful tone, but I must respectfully point out several analytical gaps and mischaracterizations in your rejoinder that warrant correction and further clarification.
1.Conceptual Clarity on Speconomy
You argued that Speconomy lacks “rigorous definition” and may risk remaining rhetorical. This is a misreading. Speconomy is neither a centrally planned system nor a populist ideological throwback. It is a pragmatic hybrid economic framework that seeks to correct the overreliance on market fundamentalism by integrating state coordination, private sector innovation, and community-based production systems. It emphasizes contextual economic governance—governance that prioritizes national economic development objectives while adapting to indigenous realities and global conditions.
It rejects the rigid binaries of capitalism vs socialism and instead operationalizes what I call the “Triadic Stakeholder Model”:
State provides policy infrastructure, long-term planning, and strategic investment in public goods.
Private Sector delivers innovation, competitiveness, and efficient resource use.
Local Communities contribute through informal economies, cooperative production, and bottom-up developmentalism.
This is no abstract manifesto. It draws inspiration from the Developmental State model, the Nordic mixed economies, and Ubuntu economics, but localized to Nigeria’s socio-political economy.
2.IMF Critique is Not a Denial of Domestic Failure
You claim that my article fails to acknowledge Nigeria’s internal contradictions like corruption, weak institutions, and policy inconsistency. Respectfully, this is inaccurate. Nowhere did I absolve the Nigerian state of blame. The article focuses on IMF hypocrisy because it is under-discussed in elite Nigerian economic discourse, which is often shaped by donor-driven narratives. IMF conditionalities—fuel subsidy removal, currency floatation, etc.—have been imposed regardless of local institutional capacity, thereby compounding economic fragility.
Your point that “domestic failure is the root cause” ignores how IMF prescriptions, historically, exacerbate existing weaknesses in developing nations instead of strengthening them. When reforms are externally crafted with one-size-fits-all policies, they not only ignore local context but also erode state legitimacy and capacity.
3 Romanticizing Nationalism? Or Proposing Balanced Sovereignty?
You warned against “romanticizing economic nationalism” and claim that Nigeria cannot disconnect from global flows. That is a strawman. Speconomy does not propose economic isolationism. It proposes strategic sovereignty, where engagement with global capital and trade is guided by national development priorities—not dictated by external creditors. South Korea, which you mentioned, did not succeed by blindly following IMF prescriptions—it initially rejected them, strategically controlled its capital flows, and used state-led industrial policy before liberalizing.
4 Rejecting the IMF: What’s the Alternative?
You asked: What viable mechanisms exist for fiscal discipline outside the IMF? The premise of this question is flawed. Fiscal discipline is not the exclusive preserve of the IMF. In fact, the Fund’s emphasis on budget balancing often undermines productive investment and social development. Countries like Malaysia, Ethiopia (pre-conflict), and even post-Apartheid South Africa under Mbeki have pursued fiscal stability without full IMF dependency.
Speconomy proposes:
A national investment bank to coordinate development finance.
A resource-backed industrial policy that leverages Nigeria’s raw materials.
Local content enforcement, backed by state procurement.
Community-cooperative financing mechanisms that promote grassroots productivity.
These are not ideological declarations but implementable steps that many middle-income countries have used to transition from primary exporters to diversified economies.
5.Empirical Grounding: Rejecting IMF is Not Utopian
Your demand for empirical proof that rejecting IMF advice leads to prosperity ignores the vast literature on the adverse impact of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in Africa and Latin America. For instance:
Ghana, under Rawlings, initially applied IMF prescriptions and suffered sharp inequality and inflation—only recovering through local policy reversals.
Argentina exited the IMF in 2005 after a devastating crisis, restructured its debt independently, and recorded high growth for years.
Botswana avoided IMF dependence and maintained one of Africa’s most stable economies via prudent state-led planning.
Thus, the evidence is there: economic liberation does not require full rejection of global institutions, but the assertion of policy sovereignty is rooted in national interest.
Conclusion
In sum, your rejoinder inadvertently reproduces the very logic that has left Nigeria economically vulnerable—an uncritical reliance on multilateral orthodoxy and dismissal of indigenous policy imagination. Speconomy is not a silver bullet, but it is a bold call to rethink governance and economic organization in ways that prioritize people, productivity, and sovereignty over externally induced austerity
We must stop treating the IMF like a neutral referee and start seeing it for what it often is—a power instrument reflecting global economic hierarchy. Thank you for pushing this important conversation forward. But let’s engage from a place of evidence, openness, and creative courage.