Transparency International Nigeria, an economist and other Nigerians have raised concerns over the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration’s N50,000 cash transfer to vulnerable citizens under its National Emergency Relief and Stabilisation Intervention, NERSI, questioning its transparency, sustainability and capacity to address poverty.
The concerns come amid growing economic hardship, rising food prices and the increasing cost of living, with questions emerging over the selection of beneficiaries, the source of funding, the duration of the programme and its potential implications ahead of the 2027 general elections.
DAILY POST reports that the intervention, which commenced last month, is designed to provide immediate financial assistance to vulnerable Nigerians struggling with the high cost of living.
The Federal Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, which is implementing the programme, explained that beneficiaries were selected from the National Social Register and verified national identity records.
The Federal Government also announced five implementing banks and digital payment platforms, including OPay, alongside designated USSD codes through which eligible beneficiaries could access the funds.
Speaking at the launch of the intervention on October 30, 2026, the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, Dr Bernard Doro, said the approved financial technology companies and payment platforms would facilitate direct disbursement to beneficiaries.
Although government officials have described the intervention as a monthly support programme, the Federal Government has yet to provide sufficient clarity on its duration, funding arrangements and the number of Nigerians expected to benefit.
Since its introduction, the scheme has generated considerable public debate, particularly over whether the N50,000 payment can provide meaningful relief to households facing persistent economic difficulties.
DAILY POST findings indicate that some Nigerians have confirmed receiving the money, while others identified as eligible beneficiaries are still awaiting payment.
One beneficiary, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the intervention had helped his family address immediate food needs but described the assistance as temporary.
“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 beneficiary said she received the money after her bank notified her of her eligibility and requested confirmation.
She explained that the N50,000 enabled her to purchase cooking gas and some food items but noted that the amount was insufficient to meet her household’s needs.
“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 cost of living raises questions over adequacy
Concerns over the intervention come against the backdrop of persistent inflation and rising prices of essential commodities.
Food inflation stood at 19.59 per cent, further increasing pressure on household budgets.
The price of liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, ranges between N1,300 and N1,600 per kilogramme, while petrol sells for between N1,325 and N1,420 per litre.
Meanwhile, World Bank Group estimates indicate that between 122 million and 133 million Nigerians are living in extreme poverty, highlighting the scale of the country’s poverty challenge.
Against this backdrop, questions have emerged over whether a N50,000 cash transfer can significantly improve the living conditions of millions of vulnerable households.
The timing of the intervention has also attracted attention, coming less than four months before Nigerians head to the polls for the 2027 general elections.
Economist questions long-term impact of N50,000 intervention
An economist and financial analyst, Godwin Oyedokun, described the Federal Government’s N50,000 NERSI intervention as a welcome social protection measure, particularly at a time when households are struggling with rising food prices, transportation costs, healthcare expenses and other basic necessities.
However, he cautioned that the potential impact of the programme must be assessed realistically, arguing that the payment could provide temporary financial relief but would not independently address the structural causes of poverty.
According to him, the money could help households purchase food, pay for essential medication and meet urgent domestic expenses.
Nevertheless, he noted that families with several dependents could exhaust the money quickly, adding that its adequacy would depend partly on whether the intervention was a one-off payment or sustained monthly support.
“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 urged the Federal Government to complement the intervention with job creation, agricultural development, vocational training, microenterprise financing, affordable healthcare and improved access to education.
He also stressed the need for transparent beneficiary selection, effective payment monitoring and independent evaluation to ensure that the funds reach the intended recipients.
The economist further called for periodic reviews of the value of the intervention in line with inflation and prevailing living costs.
He said the government should disclose the programme’s funding arrangements, duration, coverage and measurable outcomes to strengthen public 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 timing, funding of NERSI
The Head of Transparency International Nigeria, Auwal Rafsanjani, questioned why the Tinubu administration had not introduced the N50,000 cash transfer intervention earlier, particularly when Nigerians began experiencing worsening economic hardship following the government’s policy changes.
Rafsanjani suggested that the timing of the intervention, coming ahead of the 2027 general elections, raised concerns about the government’s intentions.
He argued that the programme appeared more politically motivated than a carefully designed poverty reduction strategy.
According to him, the N50,000 payment would not adequately address the hardship facing Nigerians, considering the rising cost of living 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 questioned the absence of a clearly defined framework for distributing the funds, demanding explanations about the programme’s duration, funding source and accountability mechanisms.
He argued that the Federal Government had yet to provide sufficient information on how beneficiaries were selected, how the money would be distributed transparently and who would monitor the disbursement.
Rafsanjani also raised constitutional questions about the funding of the intervention, insisting that public expenditure must comply with appropriation requirements.
He asked whether the National Assembly had approved the expenditure and what mechanisms were in place to prevent the funds from being mismanaged or diverted.
“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 further questioned which National Assembly approval covered the expenditure and who was responsible for safeguarding the funds against possible theft.
Despite his criticism, Rafsanjani acknowledged that any intervention capable of providing relief to Nigerians struggling with economic hardship was welcome.
However, he maintained that the N50,000 payment was insufficient to address the country’s broader poverty and cost-of-living challenges.
“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.