The National Assembly’s approval of N1.15 trillion in additional domestic borrowing to plug the 2025 budget deficit represents more than another financial transaction. So far, data from the Debt Management Office (DMO) reveal that the Federal Government has borrowed a total of N6. 17 trillion from the domestic debt market within the first six months of 2025. The nation’s debt burden increased from approximately N12 trillion in 2015 to N138 trillion by 2024—a staggering rise exceeding 1,000 per cent. By mid-2024, domestic borrowing accounted for roughly 53 per cent of total public debt, with much of this accumulation occurring through controversial mechanisms such as the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Ways and Means facility. The securitisation of N22.7 trillion in Ways and Means advances into a 40-year bond illustrated the extent to which short-term borrowing had spiralled beyond its intended purpose, effectively transferring current fiscal obligations to future generations.
Given that oil production remains beneath the established benchmark of 1.8 million barrels per day and that revenues derived from non-oil sectors are suboptimal, the government has progressively resorted to the debt market in order to uphold its financial obligations.
It is a critical moment that demands honest national reflection about the direction of Nigeria’s economic governance and the burden being placed on future generations. Borrowing has become the default mechanism for balancing national accounts, yet the country has consistently failed to translate debt into productive growth. This latest decision forces us to confront an uncomfortable question: Are we borrowing to build, or borrowing to survive?
Domestic borrowing is not inherently reckless. When properly used, it can stabilise the economy, protect essential public services, and fund infrastructure that drives long-term development. In an environment where oil revenue remains volatile and foreign borrowing exposes the country to exchange rate risks, domestic sourcing of credit appears, on the surface, is a safer alternative. It signals financial sovereignty and offers immediate breathing space to avoid abrupt spending cuts that could destabilise government operations and weaken social stability.
However, the underlying problem is not the choice to borrow; it is what we do with borrowed funds, and our failure to confront the structural weaknesses that repeatedly push Nigeria into deeper debt. For years, domestic loans have been disproportionately consumed by recurrent expenditure— salaries, overheads, and administrative operations — rather than capital investment that stimulates growth. Nigerians have seen little return on borrowing: infrastructure remains incomplete – our roads remained deathtraps, power supply inconsistent, the manufacturing industry stagnant, insecurity deepening with terrorists having a field day in different parts of the country. These, coupled with rising unemployment, spells doom for the country. If borrowing continues merely to sustain a bloated government structure without measurable productive outcomes, then we are constructing a fiscal time bomb.
There are also tangible economic risks. Domestic borrowing inevitably competes with private sector access to credit; banks and investors prefer the safety of government instruments to lending to businesses. As government absorbs available financial resources, credit costs rise and the private economy suffocates. The result is slower economic expansion, reduced job creation, and greater dependence on government spending — a cycle that becomes harder to escape. Beyond this, rising debt servicing costs threaten to consume the national budget, leaving education, health and other development priorities starved of funding. Already, more than half of federal revenue is being channelled into debt repayments. Every new loan tightens a rope that future budgets will struggle to loosen.
The decision also reflects deeper weaknesses in fiscal management and revenue strategy. A credible reform agenda should begin with plugging revenue leakages, widening the tax net, auditing subsidy expenditures, eliminating duplication across ministries and agencies, and enforcing disciplined budgeting.
Borrowing must be paired with structural reforms and transparent accountability. Instead, the Federal Government continues to treat loans as an easy escape from difficult decisions. Without a clear repayment strategy, measurable outcomes, or independent monitoring, this new borrowing risks sinking into the same pattern of waste and opacity that has become part of our culture in the last 40 years.
Nigerians deserve to know how this ₦1.15 trillion will be spent,what proportion will go to capital development, what timeline governs its deployment, what outcomes are expected, and how success will be tracked. Transparency is the foundation of responsible governance and investor confidence.
As a newspaper we believe that Nigeria stands at a fiscal crossroads. The government must demonstrate that this borrowing marks a new chapter of disciplined, strategic, and outcome-driven economic management rather than another step into a deepening debt trap.
We call on the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Budget Office, and the Debt Management Office to publish a full breakdown of the utilisation plan, a clear repayment schedule, and the key performance indices (KPIs) through which citizens and parliament can hold them accountable.
We also urge the National Assembly to fulfil its constitutional oversight role not by rubber-stamping executive requests, but by demanding evidence-based justification before approving future loans.
Borrowing is a tool — not a development strategy. If we continue down a path where we borrow merely to postpone failure, then the nation will soon face consequences far more painful than budgetary shortfalls. But if we use this moment to demand transparency, discipline, and reform, then it is possible for Nigeria to redirect its economic trajectory toward sustainable growth and restored public confidence.
