According to a report by Punch on Monday, May 11, 2026, the Chairman of the Progressive Governors’ Forum and Governor of Imo State, Hope Uzodimma, has stated that the economic reforms introduced by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have helped restore fiscal stability in Nigeria, improved investor confidence, and placed the country on what he described as a more structured path toward economic recovery.
He made the remarks on Monday in Abuja during an engagement with members of the diplomatic corps under the platform of the Renewed Hope Ambassadors.
The meeting focused on Nigeria’s economic direction, policy changes, and ongoing reforms introduced since the beginning of the current administration.
Uzodimma explained that two major policy decisions taken at the start of the administration in May 2023 marked a turning point in Nigeria’s economic direction.
These include the removal of fuel subsidy and the liberalisation of the foreign exchange system, particularly the naira exchange rate.
According to him, these policies were designed to address long-standing structural issues in the economy that had affected government revenue, market stability, and overall economic planning.
He stated that the decisions were difficult but necessary, especially considering the pressure they had placed on national finances over the years.
The governor further argued that the removal of fuel subsidy helped to reduce financial leakages that had become deeply rooted in the system.
He described the subsidy arrangement as a long-standing structure that created opportunities for inefficiency in public spending.
According to him, the system had become one of the major channels through which government funds were lost over time.
He explained that several economic experts and international financial institutions had advised Nigeria to reconsider the subsidy framework due to its growing financial burden on the country’s economy.
Uzodimma also stated that the subsidy regime had created an environment where a small group of individuals benefited disproportionately from public resources.
He described the system as one that allowed certain groups, including intermediaries and officials within the supply chain, to gain financial advantage at the expense of national development.
According to him, the removal of the subsidy was a direct attempt to address these challenges and redirect government spending toward more productive sectors of the economy.
He maintained that the policy change helped to close gaps that had previously enabled financial mismanagement.
He said, “Removing the subsidy did not reduce corruption by some incremental margin. It eliminated the channel itself….See More
Leave a Reply