•Calls for greater clarity on the financing The Federal Government’s $1 billion social protection programme has been described as a commendable step towards supporting vulnerable Nigerians, but cash transfers alone cannot generate sustainable income or permanently lift households out of poverty, a leading poverty eradication expert has cautioned. Professor Magnus Kpakol, former National Coordinator of […] The post FG’s $1bn social protection programme commendable, but cash transfers cannot creat
•Calls for greater clarity on the financing
The Federal Government’s $1 billion social protection programme has been described as a commendable step towards supporting vulnerable Nigerians, but cash transfers alone cannot generate sustainable income or permanently lift households out of poverty, a leading poverty eradication expert has cautioned.
Professor Magnus Kpakol, former National Coordinator of the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP), made the remarks while speaking on an Arise TV programme. He urged the government to provide greater clarity on the financing of the initiative, particularly the sources of the $1 billion fund, the share expected from World Bank financing, and how the intervention would be sustained over the long term.
Kpakol stressed that the true measure of the programme’s success should not be the volume of money distributed but the number of Nigerians who eventually graduate from poverty and become economically self-sufficient.
He praised the government’s recognition of the need to move beneficiaries beyond welfare, calling the proposed graduation approach “extremely commendable”. However, he warned that cash transfers must remain only a basic safety net rather than the central solution to poverty.
The N40,000 cash transfer, he noted, may offer temporary relief to poor households but is unlikely to fundamentally alter their economic circumstances without complementary measures. “What we really need is a ladder — a catalytic mechanism that takes people from the basic cash transfer to sustainable economic activity,” Kpakol said.
He recalled that when he introduced the cash-transfer concept in Nigeria under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the programme combined a Basic Income Guarantee with a Poverty Reduction Accelerator Investment initiative. The latter provided training, financial literacy, capacity development and access to productive opportunities. The same principle, he argued, should guide the current scheme. Beneficiaries require skills, access to capital, markets and industries capable of absorbing them into productive economic activities.
Kpakol also raised concerns about the integrity of the National Social Register, calling for a more transparent beneficiary-selection process.
During his tenure at NAPEP, he said beneficiaries were selected openly at the community level, with residents identifying those they considered genuinely poor. Such an approach fostered community ownership and reduced the risk of political patronage. “Nigerians need to know that beneficiaries are not simply party members, political cronies or people connected to influential individuals,” he stated.
While acknowledging that social programmes are often politicised, Kpakol emphasised that political considerations must not determine who benefits. He advocated stronger participation by state and local governments, noting that poverty reduction cannot be driven by the Federal Government alone. States collectively control substantial financial resources that could complement federal efforts, while local governments are better placed to identify community-level needs and opportunities.
Sustainable poverty reduction, he insisted, demands industrialisation, infrastructure development and stronger institutions. “Poverty reduction is not simply about providing capital. It is about increasing our capacity to produce the goods and services we need,” Kpakol said. Microfinance, like cash transfers, can help people connect to the mainstream economy but should not be regarded as a permanent solution. He called for greater local ownership of resources so communities can develop economic opportunities around assets available in their areas, and urged the utilisation of gas currently being flared to supply energy for households and businesses.
On the $1billion programme itself, Kpakol pressed the Federal Government to clearly explain its financing structure and sustainability plan. World Bank funding, understood to be an International Development Association loan, could offer relatively low interest and long repayment periods. Such financing would be justified, he said, if it successfully increased productivity and moved beneficiaries permanently out of poverty.
Ultimately, government should judge the programme by whether it delivers measurable and lasting reductions in poverty over the next 10 to 20 years. “The real test is not simply what we announce or how much money we distribute. It is whether we can produce measurable and sustainable reductions in poverty,” Kpakol concluded.
Follow the story
