Transparency International Nigeria, an economist and other Nigerians have expressed concerns about the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration’s N50,000 cash transfer to vulnerable citizens under its National Emergency Relief and Stabilisation Intervention, NERSI, questioning the programme’s transparency, sustainability and ability to tackle poverty.
The concerns follow increasing economic hardship, higher food prices and the rising cost of living, with questions being raised about beneficiary selection, funding sources, the programme’s duration and its possible implications ahead of the 2027 general elections.
DAILY POST reports that the initiative, which began last month, is intended to offer immediate financial support to vulnerable Nigerians struggling with the rising cost of living.
The Federal Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, responsible for implementing the initiative, said beneficiaries were drawn from the National Social Register and verified national identity records.
The Federal Government also disclosed five implementing banks and digital payment platforms, including OPay, alongside designated USSD codes to enable qualified beneficiaries to access the funds.
Speaking during the launch of the initiative on October 30, 2026, the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, Dr Bernard Doro, explained that approved financial technology companies and payment platforms would ensure direct payments to beneficiaries.
Despite government officials describing the initiative as a monthly support scheme, the Federal Government has not provided adequate information about its duration, funding structure and the number of Nigerians expected to receive assistance.
Since the programme was introduced, it has attracted considerable public discussion, especially over whether the N50,000 payment can offer substantial support to households experiencing persistent economic challenges.
DAILY POST findings show that some Nigerians have acknowledged receiving the payment, while other individuals identified as qualified beneficiaries are yet to receive their money.
One beneficiary, who requested anonymity, said the intervention had assisted his family in meeting immediate food requirements but described the support as short-lived.
“I received the relief through my account with OPay. I was able to use it to buy basic food items. However, it is not enough. Such relief should have come since the government removed the fuel subsidy,” he told DAILY POST.
Another recipient disclosed that she received the payment after her bank informed her about her eligibility and asked her to confirm it.
She said the N50,000 helped her purchase cooking gas and certain food supplies but maintained that the money could not sufficiently cover her household expenses.
“I got 12.5kg of LPG and a few food items. Truly, with the price of food and the cost of living, N50,000 can only cater for a little. It is a good thing that I received it,” she told DAILY POST.
Rising living expenses fuel concerns about the adequacy of the intervention
Questions surrounding the initiative have emerged amid continuing inflation and increasing prices of essential commodities.
Food inflation currently stands at 19.59 per cent, placing additional financial pressure on household spending.
Liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, currently sells for between N1,300 and N1,600 per kilogramme, while petrol prices range from N1,325 to N1,420 per litre.
At the same time, World Bank Group estimates suggest that between 122 million and 133 million Nigerians live in extreme poverty, underscoring the magnitude of the country’s poverty crisis.
Considering these circumstances, questions have arisen over whether a N50,000 cash transfer can substantially improve the living conditions of millions of financially vulnerable households.
The timing of the programme has equally generated interest, particularly as it comes less than four months before Nigerians participate in the 2027 general elections.
Economist doubts lasting benefits of N50,000 intervention
An economist and financial analyst, Godwin Oyedokun, described the Federal Government’s N50,000 NERSI initiative as a positive social protection intervention, especially as households struggle with increasing food prices, transportation expenses, healthcare bills and other essential needs.
However, he warned that the programme’s expected benefits should be considered realistically, explaining that although the payment could offer temporary financial assistance, it would not independently resolve the underlying factors responsible for poverty.
He explained that the money could assist households in purchasing food, obtaining essential medications and settling urgent domestic expenses.
However, he observed that households with multiple dependants could spend the money within a short period, noting that its usefulness would partly depend on whether the intervention represented a single payment or continued monthly assistance.
“The fundamental issue is that cash transfers can cushion poverty, but they cannot independently eliminate its structural causes.
“Poverty in Nigeria is linked to unemployment, low productivity, inadequate infrastructure, limited economic opportunities and the rising cost of essential goods and services.
“Giving people money without addressing these underlying challenges may provide temporary comfort without creating lasting economic improvement,” he said.
Oyedokun advised the Federal Government to support the intervention with employment opportunities, agricultural expansion, vocational education, microenterprise funding, accessible healthcare and better educational opportunities.
He equally highlighted the importance of transparent beneficiary selection, proper payment supervision and independent assessments to guarantee that the funds get to their intended recipients.
The economist also recommended regular assessments of the intervention’s financial value to reflect inflation and prevailing household expenses.
He maintained that the government needed to make information about the programme’s funding structure, duration, coverage and measurable results publicly available to improve confidence.
“Ultimately, the success of NERSI should not be determined merely by the number of beneficiaries paid, but by the extent to which their living conditions improve.
“My position is that N50,000 can cushion poverty, but it cannot structurally cure poverty.
“Nigeria needs to move beyond distributing relief funds towards building an economy where citizens have decent jobs, sustainable incomes and the capacity to meet their basic needs without depending indefinitely on government assistance,” he told DAILY POST.
‘It’s a bribe’ – Transparency International questions NERSI’s timing and funding
The Head of Transparency International Nigeria, Auwal Rafsanjani, questioned the Tinubu administration’s decision to introduce the N50,000 cash transfer initiative at this time, particularly considering that Nigerians had experienced worsening economic conditions following the government’s policy adjustments.
Rafsanjani suggested that introducing the programme ahead of the 2027 general elections had raised questions about the administration’s motives.
He maintained that the initiative appeared to have more political considerations than a properly structured poverty alleviation objective.
According to him, the N50,000 payment would do little to ease the difficulties Nigerians face, given the persistent increase in living expenses and inflation.
“This N50,000 that they are giving to some people, they didn’t do it three and a half years ago when Nigerians were crying as a result of the harsh policies that the government introduced, which made life miserable, unbearable and unaffordable.
“But because an election is coming now, it is being used to solicit Nigerians’ support. It has nothing to do with addressing poverty, the challenges and the difficulty of life,” he said.
The transparency advocate also expressed concern over the lack of a clearly established distribution framework, requesting details about the programme’s duration, funding arrangements and accountability procedures.
He argued that the Federal Government had not adequately explained the process used to identify beneficiaries, the measures for ensuring transparent payments and the authorities responsible for monitoring the distribution.
Rafsanjani further raised constitutional concerns regarding the financing of the initiative, arguing that government spending must follow established appropriation procedures.
He questioned whether the National Assembly had authorised the expenditure and what safeguards had been established to prevent possible misappropriation or diversion of the funds.
“Because there is no framework on how this money is going to be shared transparently. The government has not come up with any transparent framework on sharing this money.
“And for how long will this money be shared? We have not seen that transparency, and we have not seen the source of where this money is coming from.
“Any money that you spend, according to our law, must be appropriated by the National Assembly. So where did they get the money to be sharing the N50,000?
“It is not passed by any law. According to our Constitution, you cannot spend money without appropriation,” he said.
He also demanded clarification on the National Assembly’s approval for the expenditure and the individuals responsible for protecting the funds against possible theft.
Although critical of the initiative, Rafsanjani recognised that any government programme capable of providing assistance to Nigerians experiencing economic hardship was a welcome development.
Nevertheless, he insisted that the N50,000 payment was inadequate to resolve the country’s wider poverty problems and rising cost-of-living crisis.
“Whatever the case, whatever will relieve Nigerians and give them actual relief is a welcome development because Nigerians are going through harsh and difficult times.
“But we don’t think N50,000 will address the suffering of Nigerians,” he told DAILY POST.
