In principle, there is nothing wrong with a “Nigeria First” policy. After all, every government claims to put its country first. But the devil is in the detail. If a government pursues economic nationalism, thereby inflicting economic damage on its country, it is utter folly to wrap a nationalistic façade around such a bad policy. There is no national pride in pursuing a policy that harms your country. What’s more, it is doubly misguided to be a copycat, simply imitating the irrational behaviour of a foreign leader or the failed policy of another country. 

Sadly, the “Nigeria First” policy recently announced by the Tinubu administration falls into those two categories. First, the policy will undermine the competitiveness of the Nigerian economy and further harm Nigeria’s reputation as a place to do business. Second, the policy is a shameless imitation of President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy, which one economist described as “America’s own worst enemy” because it dampened consumer and business confidence in the US and triggered high market volatility, including a sharp decline in stock prices, a sharp rise in US Treasury yields and a steep fall in the value of the dollar. 

Now, to think that President Tinubu would announce a “Nigeria First” policy to mimic President Trump’s “America First” agenda shows the shallowness of his economic philosophy – “Tinubunomics” – and his failure to recognise that good policy is critical, more so in difficult times. Rudyard Kipling said in his famous poem, “If –”: “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs – you’ll be a man, my son! However, “Nigeria First” was Tinubu’s apparent attempt to show that he can play the same game as Trump. 

According to one newspaper: “This is similar to US. President Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ doctrine.” Mohammed Idris, Minister of Information, said: “This is a major shift in government policy. It puts Nigeria – not foreign companies, not imports – at the heart of our national development.” Really? Did he know what he was saying? Effectively, he was saying Nigeria would become an autarky. But how does an autarkic or a mercantilist country that discriminates against foreign companies and foreign products accelerate industrialisation, promote manufacturing and become an export-led economy? But before we come to the wider implications of the policy, we must address a more immediate question: How is Nigeria’s responding to President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, imposed on April 2?

Recently, I wrote a piece titled “Tinubu fiddles as Trump’s tariff war upends Nigeria’s economy,” (Vanguard, April 17, 2025). Given the admission by Jumoke Oduwole, Minister of Trade, that Trump’s 10 per cent blanket tariff and 14 per cent “reciprocal” tariff on Nigeria could cost this country $6 billion annual exports to the US, I asked how the government was responding, especially as President Trump suspended the “reciprocal” tariffs for 90 days to encourage countries to negotiate with the US. Several countries are doing so, or have done so, including the UK and China, which recently signed trade deals with the US. Securing and protecting market access overseas to boost and sustain exports is what serious countries do to support their industries and grow their economy. Autarkic nations don’t flourish!

But Tinubu’s “Nigeria First” policy signals that Nigeria doesn’t care about protecting its non-oil exports to the US. In the “2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers”, published by the Office of the United States Trade Representatives, USTR, the US complained about the prevalence of tariff and non-tariff barriers in Nigeria, including the lack of openness, fairness and transparent conditions of competition in its government procurement processes. Tinubu doubles down with “Nigeria First”, which prioritises locally made goods and favours local suppliers over foreign ones. The policy creates a truly protectionist government procurement regime that would alarm Nigeria’s trade partners.

Of course, there is always the upsurge of “patriotic” pride in Nigeria, and some would want Nigeria to call the bluff of the US and, even, the EU, the two main markets for its non-oil exports. Yet, the same people are happy for China to flood Nigeria with cheap products, even though China doesn’t buy Nigerian non-oil products. A good test of every policy is that its benefits outweigh its costs. But the benefits of Tinubu’s protectionist “Nigeria First” policy will not outweigh its costs; rather, the reverse will be the case: the costs will be significant!

So, what are the wider implications of the policy? Well, let’s start with its aims. Like previous governments, the Tinubu administration wants to use local content requirements and its procurement powers to boost domestic industries, spur local production and accelerate industrialisation. Noble intentions, you will say, and I agree. But why have decades of local content requirements, import substitution policies and “Buy-Made-in-Nigeria” initiatives not boosted manufacturing and industrialisation in Nigeria? The answer is two-fold. One, those tools are mere instruments of corruption and patronage politics. Second, they are not the supply-side measures needed to engender efficiency and productivity in manufacturing, without which there can be no vibrant manufacturing and, thus, no industrialisation.

Take the first point. Despite the Public Procurement Act of 2007, despite President Buhari’s Executive Order No 5, which was meant to bolster the act, and despite the requirement that no major procurement is valid without a “Certificate of ‘No Objection’ to Contract Award” by the Bureau of Public Procurement, government procurement in Nigeria is ridden with opaqueness and corruption. Government procurement enriches politically connected businesses and individuals, and government agencies often ignore procurement guidelines. By the way, why do local-content or buy-made-in-Nigeria rules not extend to public officeholders, including the president, using Nigerian hospitals, holidaying in Nigeria, sending their children to Nigerian universities or driving Nigerian-made cars? The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do behaviour of Nigerian leaders is always a recipe for policy failure. 

Now, what about the second problem? Well, truth is, government intervention through protectionist government procurement is not the way to support domestic industries. What industries need are supply-side measures, such as lower regulations, lower taxes, access to finance, physical infrastructure, human capital, digitisation, regular power supply and other measures that reduce the costs of production. No nation can industrialise with high cost of production and with irregular and costly energy supply. Furthermore, no nation can truly industrialise by cocooning its businesses from competitive pressures. Tinubu’s “Nigeria First” policy imposes a technology transfer requirement on contracts for foreign goods and services. That’s utterly misguided in a world where there is a stiff competition for foreign investment. 

Tinubu came to power giving the impression that his administration was market friendly, as opposed to Buhari’s dirigisme. Despite the flaws in their implementation, he removed fuel subsidies, liberalised the foreign exchange market and scrapped the CBN forex restrictions on 43 items, imposed in 2015 to, among others, conserve foreign exchange. But now, in an apparent sop to Trump’s “America First” protectionism, Tinubu has launched his own “Nigeria First” economic nationalism. The copycat protectionism will harm Nigeria!