The decision of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) under the leadership of Comrade Joe Ajaero to attack President Bola Tinubu’s request for external borrowing is not only misplaced, but reflects a troubling tendency to politicize issues that demand sober economic analysis and patriotic engagement.
No responsible government confronted with decades of infrastructural decay, massive socio-economic deficits, youth unemployment, energy challenges, poor transportation networks, inadequate healthcare facilities, educational deficiencies, and weak industrial capacity can realistically address such challenges without mobilizing substantial financial resources. This is not a matter of ideology but economic reality.
It is therefore surprising that a labour leader of Ajaero’s standing would appear to suggest that borrowing, in itself, is inherently wrong. Such a position is neither supported by global economic practice nor by the historical experiences of nations that have successfully transformed their economies.
The truth remains that nations borrow. The United States borrows. China borrows. India borrows. The United Kingdom borrows. Japan, one of the world’s most advanced economies, carries one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios globally. Borrowing is a globally accepted instrument of development when deployed responsibly and invested in productive sectors.
What matters is not whether a country borrows but why it borrows, how much it borrows, the terms attached to the borrowing, and what development outcomes are achieved with the funds.
President Tinubu did not create Nigeria’s infrastructure deficit. He inherited decades of neglect, abandoned projects, weak institutions, poor fiscal management, mounting liabilities, and an economy that had become increasingly dependent on unsustainable subsidy payments. For years, governments postponed difficult decisions while critical sectors deteriorated.
Roads collapsed. Rail infrastructure remained inadequate. Power supply stagnated. Industries suffered. Investors fled. Millions of young Nigerians were left without opportunities.
These challenges cannot disappear merely because fuel subsidy has been removed.
The argument advanced by Ajaero that subsidy removal alone should generate sufficient resources to fix Nigeria’s problems fundamentally misunderstands the scale of the country’s developmental needs. The resources freed from subsidy removal are important, but they are nowhere near sufficient to address decades of accumulated deficits across every sector of the economy.
Nigeria requires trillions of naira in investments to modernize transportation infrastructure, expand electricity generation and transmission, strengthen food security, improve healthcare delivery, support industrialization, enhance security architecture, and stimulate economic growth. These objectives require long-term capital, and external financing remains one of the legitimate means of accessing such resources.
More disturbing, however, is the tendency of some labour leaders to oppose government initiatives without offering practical alternatives. It is easy to criticize borrowing. The more difficult question is this: If government should not borrow, how exactly should it mobilize the enormous resources needed to execute strategic infrastructure projects capable of transforming the economy?
Labour leaders owe Nigerians answers to such questions.
The responsibility of the NLC is not to function as an opposition political party. The labour movement occupies a respected position in democratic societies because it serves as a constructive advocate for workers’ rights while contributing to national development through social dialogue. International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions emphasize cooperation, consultation, dialogue, and constructive engagement among governments, employers, and workers’ representatives.
Nothing in the traditions of responsible trade unionism supports the politicization of every major economic policy.
Ajaero must therefore resist the temptation to approach national economic issues through partisan lenses. Trade union leadership requires a higher sense of responsibility. Patriotism demands that every stakeholder evaluate policies based on their potential benefits and long-term national interests rather than political considerations.
If there are concerns about transparency, accountability, debt sustainability, project monitoring, or implementation mechanisms, those concerns should be raised constructively. Nigerians have every right to demand prudent management of borrowed funds. Such scrutiny strengthens democracy.
However, blanket opposition to borrowing simply because borrowing is involved serves neither workers nor the broader national interest.
The reality remains that President Tinubu’s administration is attempting to confront problems that have accumulated over several decades. The administration faces the difficult task of rebuilding critical infrastructure, restoring investor confidence, modernizing key sectors, and repositioning Nigeria for sustainable growth. These ambitions require financing.
History teaches that transformative development often demands bold investments. Roads, railways, seaports, airports, power infrastructure, industrial parks, healthcare systems, and educational institutions are not built through wishful thinking. They require capital.
Rather than discouraging efforts to secure development financing, patriotic stakeholders should insist that every borrowed dollar is tied to measurable projects, transparent procurement processes, efficient execution, and clear economic returns.
That approach would better serve workers and the nation.
Comrade Joe Ajaero should therefore rise above politics and embrace the higher calling of statesmanship. At this critical moment in Nigeria’s history, the country needs honest engagement, constructive criticism, and patriotic collaboration, not reflexive opposition. The NLC must remain faithful to the core values and ethics of trade unionism by promoting dialogue, responsibility, and national development.
Nigeria’s socio-economic wounds were not inflicted overnight, and they cannot be healed overnight. Addressing decades of abandonment requires courage, sacrifice, vision, and significant investment. Where borrowing is prudent, transparent, and directed toward productive development, it should be viewed as an instrument of national renewal rather than a political talking point.
The fundamental question before Nigerians is not whether the government borrows, but whether borrowed funds are deployed transparently and effectively to close critical socio-economic gaps, modernize infrastructure, create sustainable employment opportunities, and drive inclusive economic growth. However and in all fairness, President Bola Tinubu’s government has demonstrated a commitment to fiscal reforms, infrastructure development, and greater accountability in the management of public resources, his policy initiatives and projects are evidence of his strong commitment to a renewed hope agenda contrary to Ajaero’s misleading tirade.
Consequently, national discourse should be centered on transparency, accountability, and measurable development outcomes rather than on political rhetoric or sensationalism. Constructive scrutiny of government policies is essential in any democracy, but such engagement should be guided by facts, objectivity, and the national interest. Nigerians deserve a robust debate on how public funds are utilized and the results they deliver, rather than distractions that risk diverting attention from the pressing economic and developmental challenges confronting the nation, therefore Ajaero and his controversial should be properly guided in the general interest of Nigeria.
Akin Oluwarotimi is an elder statesman, rights activist, lawyer and cyber security consultant based in Abuja
