Nigeria’s cash-transfer reform deserves recognition for creating a mechanism capable of moving public funds directly to millions of vulnerable households. But it also exposes a troubling weakness in the nation’s social protection system, as identifying poor Nigerians is not the same as protecting them.
The reported disbursement of N688 billion to 9.2 million households under the Household Uplifting Programme-Conditional Cash Transfers is significant. It demonstrates that the government can build and operate a large-scale direct-transfer system. The deliberate targeting of women, who account for 58.7 percent of beneficiaries, is also commendable given their central role in household welfare. Yet the larger question remains unanswered, which is how many vulnerable Nigerians are still outside the system?
‘The next phase of Nigeria’s social-protection programme must therefore focus less on announcing larger beneficiary numbers and more on improving the integrity of the system.’
The gap between the 19.8 million poor Nigerians recorded on the National Social Register and the 1.2 million reportedly validated for payment as of January 2025 illustrates the problem. Even though validation subsequently expanded and 9.2 million households had received payments by February 2026, the government has not publicly provided a clear reconciliation showing how those registered, validated, and paid relate to one another.
This is not a minor administrative weakness, but can determine whether social protection becomes a genuine instrument for reducing hardship or merely a system for announcing disbursements.
Nigeria’s reforms of 2023 created a severe cost-of-living shock. The removal of petrol subsidy and foreign-exchange reforms were economically defensible measures, but they transferred significant adjustment costs to households. For poor families with little savings or alternative income, rising food, transportation, housing and energy costs can quickly become a crisis.
Cash transfers can therefore serve an important purpose. They provide temporary relief while broader economic reforms begin producing benefits. But they cannot substitute for a functioning economy that creates jobs, raises incomes and reduces the structural causes of poverty. The danger is that the government could mistake coverage for impact.
If poverty continues to rise while billions of naira are being distributed, policymakers must ask whether the intervention is sufficiently large, properly targeted and adequately designed for the scale of the problem. A transfer that helps millions is valuable, but it cannot provide adequate protection if tens of millions more remain vulnerable.
There is also the issue of public confidence, as allegations of political interference and demands for greater transparency should not simply be dismissed as criticism. They should be answered with data. Government should have nothing to fear from independent verification if the system is genuinely reaching the intended beneficiaries.
The ideal system should be simple. A person identified as eligible should be traceable through every stage (registered, validated, paid, and monitored). If excluded, that person should have an accessible mechanism to appeal. If money is transferred, the government should be able to demonstrate where it went without exposing beneficiaries’ personal information.
The next phase of Nigeria’s social-protection programme must therefore focus less on announcing larger beneficiary numbers and more on improving the integrity of the system.
Government should publish quarterly state-by-state data showing the number registered, validated, approved, paid, and excluded, together with the amounts disbursed. Personal identities need not be disclosed.
Also, beneficiary selection should be subjected to independent verification. State governments can assist with identifying vulnerable communities, but they should not have unchecked control over beneficiary lists. This is essential to prevent social protection from becoming a political patronage mechanism.
Likewise, there must be a functional complaints and appeals system. A poor household that has been identified but excluded should not have to depend on political connections to correct an administrative error.
Similarly, the government must measure outcomes rather than transfers. Independent assessments should establish whether beneficiaries experience improvements in food security, children’s school attendance, healthcare access, household consumption and productive investment.
Most importantly, cash transfers must form part of a broader poverty-reduction strategy. Nigerians cannot be permanently lifted out of poverty through government transfers alone. Social protection must operate alongside job creation, agricultural productivity, affordable healthcare, quality education, skills development, infrastructure and support for small businesses.
Nigeria has built an important machine, but the challenge now is to make that machine work reliably for the people it was created to serve.