Pat Utomi: Flirting with intellectualism

PROFESSOR Pat Utomi has once again chosen to dance naked in the public square, playing to the gallery with a familiar cocktail of grandstanding and gloom. This time, he has come to dismiss the reform programme of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as “ridiculous”, “poorly structured”, and, in a flourish of intellectual overreach, a “Ponzi scheme”. At this point, the issue is no longer what Utomi is saying. The issue is why his interventions consistently collapse under the weight of their own exaggeration, under the slightest scrutiny or interrogation. Any reflective — indeed, discerning — mind would note that, after all these long years of sophistry and vacuous pontifications, all Utomi can possibly point to as his bona fides or bragging rights in the civic space today are the ruins of Volkswagen Automobile Ltd and BankPHB, where his much-touted “academic wizardry” was exposed as “Ponzi scheme”. 

An economy of words, not results: Utomi’s public persona has long rested on the alarmist aura of a “political economist”. But strip away the titles, the panels, and the endless commentary, and a more uncomfortable question emerges: where is the evidence of all his posturings in the public space? Nigeria’s economic distortions did not emerge in a vacuum. They were sustained over decades by a rotating class of commentators and advisers who theorised dysfunction instead of dismantling it; intellectualised failure instead of correcting it, and, crucially, found relevance within a broken system. Utomi was not outside that ecosystem. He was part of it. Contrast this with measurable shifts under the current reform cycle: Fuel subsidy removal (May 2023) which eliminated a multi-trillion-naira fiscal drain, freeing up revenues for subnational allocations and deficit reduction. Exchange rate unification: collapsed multiple FX windows into a single market-reflective rate—an essential step flagged for years by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The actual “Ponzi scheme” that benefited a few with privileged access through arbitrage. FAAC disbursements have risen materially post-subsidy removal, improving state-level fiscal liquidity. These are not theoretical positions. They are structural actions with verifiable fiscal impact.

READ ALSO: Corruption remains Nigeria’s biggest problem ― Pat Utomi

From insider comfort to outsider outrage: There is a pattern here that is too glaring to ignore. For years, the rent-seeking architecture of Nigeria’s economy—subsidy leakages, FX arbitrage, policy opacity—created space for a certain kind of “expert”: visible, vocal, and perpetually adjacent to power, yet rarely accountable for outcomes. Now, that architecture is being disrupted. And suddenly, the volume of outrage has gone up. This is not a coincidence. It is a reaction. When a system that once rewarded commentary begins to prioritise structural correction, those who thrived in the old order often rebrand themselves as its fiercest critics – not out of principless but out of displacement. Meanwhile, early macro signals are adjusting: oil revenue remittances have improved post-subsidy removal and reforms in NNPCL transparency frameworks. External reserves stability has strengthened relative to pre-reform volatility cycles. Debt service-to-revenue pressure has begun easing marginally as fiscal leakages are curtailed.

The “Ponzi scheme” claim: A collapse of serious thinking: Let’s be blunt. Calling a national reform programme a “Ponzi scheme” is not provocative—it is intellectually hollow. A Ponzi scheme is built on deception and zero value creation. Nigeria’s reforms—however painful—are attempting to: eliminate fiscal leakages, restore price discovery in the FX market, and rebuild macroeconomic credibility. If anything resembled a Ponzi structure, it was the previous regime of borrowing to sustain consumption, subsidising inefficiency at scale, masking structural weakness with artificial stability, an economy that sustained the likes of Utomi and his “Patitio’s gang” of economic buccaneers. Utomi’s analogy does not expose the present; it exposes a troubling looseness in his analytical discipline. He ignores the fact that investor-facing fundamentals are being reset: FX backlog clearance efforts have improved confidence among foreign portfolio investors. Repatriation conditions—a long-standing investor concern—are gradually normalising. Under the Tinubu administration, policy signaling now aligns more closely with orthodox macroeconomic frameworks.

Noise without substance: What is most striking is not the criticism—it is the emptiness behind it. Utomi offers no coherent alternative framework, no credible sequencing model, no fiscal pathway that avoids the very crisis he warns about. Just declarations. Just alarm. Just noise. For someone positioned as a thought leader, this is a remarkably thin offering. In contrast, reform-linked institutional moves are underway: Tax reform architecture (2025 Acts) aimed at broadening the base and improving compliance efficiency. E-invoicing rollout for large taxpayers—enhancing transparency and revenue assurance. Customs modernisation and AEO programme—improving trade facilitation and compliance. These are systems-level interventions—not soundbites.

The Familiar Playbook: Alarm, Amplify, Exit: We have seen this pattern before: 1. Declare impending collapse. 2. Use dramatic language to command attention. 3. Avoid the burden of proposing solutions. 4. Harass government into putting you on some committee, think tank or council to correct it all. It is a performance—one that thrives in media cycles but adds little to policy depth. Yet the data trajectory, while imperfect, is not static: GDP growth has remained positive, avoiding contraction despite reform shocks. Non-oil revenue performance (VAT and CIT) has shown upward momentum. Subnational fiscal space has expanded due to higher distributable revenues.

A waning voice struggling to stay relevant: There is also an underlying tension that cannot be ignored. This administration has not leaned on the usual circle of media intellectuals and policy commentators who, for years, occupied advisory and influence corridors within our national polity. And since then, some of those voices have grown increasingly strident—less analytical, more combative. Utomi’s latest intervention fits that pattern uncomfortably well. When relevance is no longer assured, outrage often becomes therapeutic. Meanwhile, reform continuity is being institutionalised: Medium-term fiscal frameworks now reflect post-subsidy realities. Targeted social intervention programmes are being recalibrated to cushion reform shocks.  Investment promotion efforts are aligning with a more transparent FX and pricing regime. Nigeria’s reforms are not beyond criticism. But they are on track and trackable. They demand scrutiny, refinement, and stronger social cushioning. But what Professor Utomi has offered is not scrutiny. It is not even rigorous dissent. It is amplification without depth. Critique without responsibility. Rhetoric without rigor. And in a moment that demands serious thinking, that kind of intervention is not just unhelpful; it is a distraction masquerading as insight—especially when set against a reform programme that, for the first time in years, is confronting the structural contradictions that voices like his long circled but never resolved. Utomi may do well to consider maintaining a dignified silence, hide his vacuousness and let President Tinubu do his work. Counsel is welcome, distraction is not. 

•Dare is Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Media and Public Communication.