Michael Olugbode in Abuja
President Bola Tinubu’s claim to a place among Nigeria’s most consequential leaders should be measured by the structural reforms he has undertaken, the institutions he is building and his willingness to confront problems successive administrations postponed
This position was argued by the Director-General of the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council (PEBEC), Princess Zahrah Mustapha Audu.
Audu who is also the National Publicity Secretary of the City Boy Movement made the case in an opinion article titled “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu Is Nigeria’s Greatest-Ever Leader,” contending the president’s leadership should not be assessed solely by the immediate economic hardship associated with his policies.
She acknowledged that the reforms had imposed genuine difficulties on Nigerians but argued that the more important question was whether the old economic arrangements could have been sustained indefinitely without imposing greater costs on the country.
According to her, Tinubu’s decision to remove the petrol subsidy represented a break with what she described as Nigeria’s “political economy of postponement,” in which governments repeatedly deferred difficult decisions because their political costs were immediate, while the consequences of inaction were transferred to the future.
“Leadership sometimes requires choosing not between difficulty and comfort, but between the difficulty of adjustment today and the greater danger of structural failure tomorrow,” she stated.
Audu’s argument places the administration’s economic reforms within a broader assessment of state capacity, presenting the reduction of bureaucratic obstacles to businesses as an essential component of national development.
She said permits, customs procedures, company registration, commercial courts and the time required to obtain government approvals were not merely administrative matters but factors that directly affected investment, productivity and economic competitiveness.
Through PEBEC and the broader business-facilitation framework, she said, the administration was pursuing a philosophy in which government would facilitate legitimate enterprise rather than obstruct it.
“Every unnecessary procedure imposes a cost. Every unpredictable regulation introduces uncertainty. Every hour an entrepreneur spends navigating bureaucracy is an hour unavailable for production, innovation and expansion,” she said.
The PEBEC Director-General further linked the reforms to President Tinubu’s ambition of building a $1 trillion economy by 2030, arguing that the objective required more than economic declarations.
She maintained that a stronger economy would depend on institutions capable of mobilising revenue, formulating policy, executing decisions, enforcing rules predictably and creating conditions for private enterprise to flourish.
Audu also argued that Tinubu’s political significance could not be understood solely through his presidency, insisting that his record of political organisation and institution-building stretched back several decades.
She recalled his experience as a senator during the Third Republic, his association with the struggle for democratic restoration during military rule, his period in exile and his return to Nigeria, where he served as governor of Lagos State from 1999 to 2007.
She said his political influence continued after leaving office, particularly through his role in opposition politics and the coalition-building that contributed to the formation of the All Progressives Congress and the party’s victory in the 2015 presidential election.
According to her, the ability to remain politically consequential after leaving formal office distinguished Tinubu from many politicians whose influence depended largely on occupying public positions.
The article also presented Lagos as an early expression of what Audu described as Tinubu’s philosophy of the capable state.
She argued that the central challenge confronting Lagos in 1999 was not simply the absence of private economic activity, but the inability of public institutions to match the dynamism of the population and businesses operating within the state.
“States do not become effective because their leaders possess admirable intentions. They become effective when institutions can mobilise revenue, formulate policy, execute decisions, enforce rules predictably and create the conditions in which private enterprise can flourish,” she said.
Audu acknowledged that Nigeria had produced other leaders whose contributions remained significant, but argued that Tinubu’s political journey was unusual in its combination of democratic struggle, executive experience, opposition organisation, coalition-building and national economic reform.
She however conceded that the President’s work remained unfinished and that history’s final judgment could not yet be written.
“Giving President Tinubu his flowers does not mean suspending scrutiny,” she said, urging Nigerians to continue demanding improved living conditions, social amenities and infrastructure.
Her position is that such demands should coexist with recognition of the administration’s reform agenda, rather than automatically disqualifying it from historical consideration.
The debate over Tinubu’s legacy comes against the backdrop of Nigeria’s long-running economic challenges, including fuel-subsidy costs, foreign-exchange pressures, weak public revenues, infrastructure deficits and administrative inefficiencies.
These challenges have shaped successive governments’ policy choices and continue to influence public assessments of the President’s economic programme.
Audu’s central contention is that leadership should ultimately be judged not only by the comfort it preserves in the present, but also by the institutions it strengthens and the future it makes possible.
She added that Tinubu’s place in Nigerian history was already difficult to ignore, even though the ultimate verdict on his presidency would depend on the outcomes of the reforms now underway.
Discussion about this post