Don't Bwala Feel Conscientious When He Says Nigerians Earning ₦60,000 Are Better Off Than Many Living Abroad?

Every government spokesperson eventually encounters a defining test. It is the moment when defending the administration begins to conflict with defending the truth. At that point, one question inevitably arises: does conscience still have a place in public communication?

That question has become unavoidable following Daniel Bwala's claim that many Nigerians earning the ₦60,000 minimum wage are better off than numerous Nigerians who relocated abroad in search of greener pastures.

Speaking on “The Morayo Show”, the Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Media and Policy Communications painted a gloomy picture of life abroad. According to him, many Nigerian graduates in countries like the United Kingdom now work in care homes and warehouses, earning between £2,600 and £2,800 monthly only to see much of it disappear into rent, transport, utilities, food and other living expenses. He even described their experience as "modern-day slavery." To further buttress his view, Bwala maintained that some Nigerians earning modest salaries at home may still enjoy a better support system than those living overseas.

There is, admittedly, some truth in his description. No serious observer would deny that life in many Western countries has become increasingly expensive. Housing costs have risen sharply, inflation has squeezed household budgets, and many immigrants work multiple jobs just to maintain a decent standard of living. The romanticized image that every Nigerian who relocates abroad automatically becomes wealthy has long been shattered by reality.

But acknowledging the foregoing graphical reality is entirely different from concluding that Nigerians surviving on ₦60,000 every month are better off. That is where Bwala's argument collapses.

A spokesperson's duty is not merely to defend government policies but to explain them honestly and credibly. Credibility, however, suffers when public officials make comparisons that ignore the lived realities of the citizens they are addressing.

The average Nigerian worker earning ₦60,000 does not require sophisticated economic analysis to understand what that amount can or cannot buy. Reality confronts them every single day.

A trip to the market tells the story. Transport fares tell the story. Electricity bills tell the story. Hospital charges tell the story. School fees tell the story. Cooking gas prices tell the story. House rent tells the story. This is as inflation has quietly turned ₦60,000 into an amount that struggles to sustain an individual, much less a family.

It is therefore astonishing that anyone occupying one of the nation's highest communication offices could present such an income as evidence that Nigerian workers enjoy a better quality of life than many living overseas.

Perhaps Bwala intended to compare purchasing power rather than absolute income. Perhaps he wished to emphasize that family support networks in Nigeria often provide a cushion unavailable to migrants abroad. Even if that were his intention, the argument remains deeply flawed. Support from family is not a substitute for a living wage. Neither is dependence on relatives a measure of economic success.

Indeed, the fact that a worker earning ₦60,000 must often rely on extended family members simply underscores how inadequate that income has become. Ironically, what Bwala offered as proof of economic advantage actually exposes economic vulnerability. The comparison becomes even weaker when broader economic realities are considered.

Yes, living costs abroad are significantly higher. Yet wages are generally structured around those costs. Workers often benefit from functioning public transportation, health insurance, unemployment protection, social welfare programmes, pension systems and institutions that, although imperfect, provide a level of security that many Nigerians can only dream of.

Contrariwise, Nigeria presents an entirely different picture. Healthcare is largely financed out of personal income. Parents increasingly shoulder enormous educational expenses. Transportation consumes an ever-growing portion of monthly earnings. Electricity remains both expensive and unreliable. Inflation relentlessly reduces purchasing power. The ordinary worker receives little institutional protection against these realities.

Against the foregoing backdrop, comparing a Nigerian earning ₦60,000 with someone earning thousands of pounds monthly, even after accounting for higher living costs, becomes less an economic analysis than a political talking point.That is why Bwala's remarks have attracted widespread criticism.

More importantly, they raise an uncomfortable ethical question. Does he genuinely believe what he said? Or was he simply engaging in what Nigerians commonly describe as eyeservice? Eyeservice has become one of the unfortunate features of Nigerian political communication.

It is the habit of saying whatever appears favourable to those in power, regardless of whether it reflects reality. It is the instinct to defend every policy, every statistic and every official narrative, even when ordinary citizens experience something entirely different.

Over the years, Nigerians have repeatedly heard government officials assure them that the economy is improving while inflation continues to soar. They have been told that reforms are yielding positive results while household purchasing power steadily declines.

They have listened to declarations of economic success while struggling to afford three meals a day. Each time this happens, public trust suffers another blow.

Communication is not propaganda. Its primary purpose is to build credibility between government and citizens. When official statements consistently contradict everyday experience, credibility evaporates. People begin to question not only the messenger but the institution the messenger represents. This is precisely why Bwala's statement deserves scrutiny.

After all, simple arithmetic remains stubborn. Can ₦60,000 comfortably pay rent in most Nigerian cities? Can it adequately feed a household for an entire month? Can it cover transportation, electricity, healthcare, communication costs and children's education simultaneously? Can it leave anything meaningful for savings or emergencies? Can a young graduate realistically build a future on such earnings? These are not opposition questions. They are not partisan questions. They are practical questions rooted in the daily experiences of millions of Nigerians.

Their answers are found not inside television studios but inside overcrowded buses, neighbourhood markets, hospitals, schools and homes across the country.

During negotiations leading to the present minimum wage, organised labour repeatedly argued that workers required significantly higher earnings because inflation had severely eroded purchasing power. Economists made similar arguments. Even many state governments expressed concern about their ability to implement the new wage. At no point did anyone seriously describe ₦70,000, not even the ₦60,000 that is the subject of this piece being evidence of prosperity. The new minimum wage was accepted largely as a compromise. To now present that same figure as proof that Nigerians are better off than many living abroad is to detach it completely from the economic circumstances that produced it.

Public office certainly demands loyalty. But loyalty should never require the abandonment of honesty. Governments benefit far more from advisers who communicate difficult truths than from those who defend every position regardless of evidence.

History repeatedly demonstrates that constructive criticism strengthens governance. Eyeservice weakens it. Ultimately, only Daniel Bwala knows whether he genuinely believes that Nigerians earning ₦60,000 are better off than many of their compatriots overseas. That remains a matter between him and his conscience.

The Nigerian public, however, has every right to judge his remarks against the reality they confront each day.

When salaries disappear before the middle of the month; when parents struggle to keep children in school; when transport costs consume a substantial portion of monthly income; when food prices continue to rise almost weekly; when workers postpone medical treatment because they cannot afford hospital bills, no amount of political spin can redefine hardship as comfort.

Truth has a stubborn way of surviving rhetoric. In times of economic distress, facts matter. Credibility matters. Empathy matters.

In fact, government spokespersons best serve both their principals and the Nigerian people not by defending every position at all costs, but by communicating with honesty, balance and respect for the intelligence of citizens. That is why Daniel Bwala's controversial assertion deserves more than criticism. It deserves a question that only he can answer: “Does he truly feel conscientious when he says that Nigerians earning ₦60,000 are better off than many living abroad?”