The federal government’s recent announcement of plans to distribute N75,000 cash transfers to an estimated 70 million of the ‘poorest of the poor’ Nigerians this year has been met with mixed reactions, particularly given the outcomes of previous interventions. This has reinforced calls for the government to explore more effective ways of cushioning the impact of the economic crisis on the masses beyond cash transfers, which have proven to be, at best, a temporary solution.

Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, announced that the ministry aimed to implement the programme across all 36 states by the end of January, targeting up to 18.1 million households through the National Identity Number (NIN) system. He explained that this initiative would also enhance digital identity registration for low-income Nigerians in collaboration with the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC), ensuring better inclusion of vulnerable populations in the government’s database.

According to Yilwatda, the programme intends to leverage technology to improve efficiency, transparency and accountability in the cash transfer process. The digital registration, he said, would help minimise errors, enhance tracking and ensure that funds reach the intended beneficiaries. While this technological approach is commendable—especially considering past allegations of corruption in similar programmes—many remain skeptical about the actual impact of these interventions.

We agree that effective social assistance programmes have the potential to generate multiplier effects in the economy. If properly designed and implemented, they can help individuals escape poverty by improving their socio-economic conditions, boosting purchasing power, building resilience and stimulating local economic activity.

However, with allegations of corruption still hanging over two former ministers—Hajiya Sadiya Farouk and Dr Betta Edu—there are lingering concerns about transparency in the implementation of these interventions.

Questions persist about the integrity of the register being used and the criteria for determining eligibility. Put simply, the selection process has often been unclear, shrouded in secrecy, or too restrictive.

Over the years, social assistance programmes in Nigeria have largely failed to improve access to housing, healthcare, and basic services. They have also struggled to integrate the informal economy and stimulate local development, raising concerns about their long-term viability.

Although the government has explained that the N75, 000 payments will be disbursed in three tranches of N25,000 over three months, this raises a fundamental question: what happens once the money is spent? If this is not a sustainable solution, why not redirect the resources into more productive interventions that provide long-term benefits to the poor?

We believe a more impactful approach would be to invest the funds in productive ventures for the people. This justifies the argument that the government should abandon the top-down approach in favour of a community-based, bottom-up model. We align with the school of thought advocating for grassroots-led solutions—leveraging local groups, resources and champions to create investment opportunities that increase incomes and build resilience among the poor and vulnerable.

As some experts have also argued, helping the poor navigate economic hardship does not have to come in the form of cash transfers. Access to healthcare, education, good roads and job opportunities is what Nigerians truly need from their government. Additionally, the government at all levels—local, state and federal—should explore the option of food tickets, as practised in other countries.

Ultimately, what Nigerians need are the fundamental services and opportunities that enable them to lead dignified lives. While the government has justified cash transfer initiatives by linking them to conditions attached to certain foreign loans, it is time to reassess these policies. Accepting loans that require citizens to survive on handouts is not a sustainable economic strategy.

The federal government previously announced plans to borrow $800 million for a conditional cash transfer programme under Nigeria’s social safety net initiative. This scheme aimed to provide N8, 000 per month to 12 million poor families over six months. At the time, many Nigerians suggested that the funds would be better used to support social impact enterprises and long-term economic projects. Though that advice was seemingly ignored, it remains a crucial recommendation for any government serious about poverty alleviation.

To address the economic hardship caused by its policies, the government must recognise that distributing palliatives is not a long-term solution.

For Nigerians who have lost their livelihoods due to these policies, it is demeaning to depend on handouts. This is neither empowering nor sustainable. On the contrary, credible solutions and strategies that create lasting economic opportunities must be developed and implemented at all levels of government.

It is time Nigerians at the grassroots experienced the impact of local government financial autonomy. They need to be empowered to deliver meaningful interventions. Additionally, states must be held accountable for the increased federal allocations they receive due to the removal of the petrol subsidy and the devaluation of the naira. The burden of addressing economic challenges cannot rest solely on the federal government.

We suggest unequivocally that rather than continuing down the same ineffective path, governments across the three tiers must rethink their approach to poverty alleviation. A strategy focused on economic empowerment, infrastructural development, and social investment would provide a more meaningful solution than short-lived cash transfers.

Nigerians deserve more than temporary relief; they deserve a comprehensive plan that fosters sustainable economic growth and long-term prosperity.