Manufacturing In Decline Despite Nigeria First Rhetoric
Nigeria First: A Familiar Promise, A Familiar Failure
FOR decades, successive Nigerian governments have proclaimed their commitment to industrialisation and local production. Yet the country’s manufacturing sector continues to tell a story of stagnation, decline, and missed opportunities. The much-publicised “Nigeria First” policy of the Bola Tinubu administration, like similar initiatives before it, appears rich in political messaging but thin in measurable economic impact.
Despite manufacturing being widely acknowledged as the backbone of economic diversification, job creation, and export competitiveness, Nigeria’s industrial base remains fragile. Data from the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) shows the sector is operating at less than 50 per cent of installed capacity, while its contribution to GDP has steadily declined over the years.
Weak Numbers, Deeper Structural Problems
A third-quarter 2025 KPMG report paints a sobering picture. Manufacturing growth stood at just 1.38 per cent in 2024, with a five-year average of 1.17 per cent. The sector’s GDP contribution fell from 9.2 per cent in 2018 to 8.6 per cent in 2024, while manufacturing exports plunged from 10.8 per cent of total exports in 2019 to just 2.2 per cent in 2023.
Even a dramatic rise in export value in 2024 did little to change the narrative, as manufacturing still accounted for only about three per cent of total exports—far behind regional peers like Egypt, South Africa, and even Ghana. These figures underscore a persistent structural weakness that policy declarations alone have failed to address.
Executive Orders Without Enforcement
The Tinubu administration’s Nigeria First policy echoes earlier efforts, particularly Executive Orders 003 and 005 signed under the Buhari administration. Executive Order 003 mandated government agencies to prioritise Made-in-Nigeria goods in procurement, while Executive Order 005 sought to promote local content through science and technology.
On paper, these orders were robust. In practice, enforcement was weak. Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) largely ignored the directives, procurement officers found ways around them, and no meaningful sanctions followed violations. The result was predictable: imported goods continued to dominate government procurement.
Textiles as a Case Study in Policy Failure
The textile sector illustrates the consequences of this inconsistency. According to the Textile Manufacturers Association of Nigeria, Nigeria once had over 200 textile mills; today, fewer than 20 remain operational. Cheap imported fabrics—often polyester-based—flood the market, undercutting locally produced cotton fabrics that cost several times more to produce due to energy, logistics, and financing challenges.
Without tariff protection, stable electricity, or consistent government patronage, local manufacturers are left to compete in an uneven market. Backward integration efforts have also faltered, as cotton farmers increasingly sell to foreign buyers offering better prices.
Beyond Slogans: What Manufacturing Really Needs
Stakeholders agree that executive orders alone cannot revive manufacturing. Manufacturers need reliable power, affordable financing, functional transport infrastructure, and protection from unfair import competition. High interest rates, unstable electricity supply, and policy inconsistency continue to stifle growth.
Countries that have successfully industrialised—from China to the United States—combine local procurement policies with tariffs, subsidies, infrastructure investment, and strict enforcement. Nigeria’s failure lies not in the absence of ideas, but in the absence of political will to see them through.
Conclusion: Packaging Without Substance
The Nigeria First policy, like its predecessors, risks becoming another symbolic gesture unless backed by enforcement, sanctions, and structural reforms. Without these, manufacturing will remain Nigeria’s unrealised promise—celebrated in speeches, neglected in practice.
