Between 1966 and 1999, Nigeria experienced decades of military rule, with successive juntas promising economic rescue and national stability. While military governments projected discipline, order, and efficiency, they consistently failed to build a resilient and stable economy. Instead, their rule left the nation vulnerable to corruption, institutional weakness, and dependence on oil revenues, shaping the economic challenges Nigeria still faces today.
Centralised Power and Weak Institutions
Military regimes concentrated authority in the hands of senior officers and ruling councils. Ministries, regulatory agencies, and public enterprises operated under military supervision rather than independent structures. This centralisation weakened institutional capacity, disrupted continuity, and reduced public trust in governance. Development plans were frequently abandoned or restructured with each regime change, preventing long-term economic progress.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
Corruption and Resource Dependence
Although military leaders claimed moral superiority over civilian governments, corruption remained pervasive. Control over oil revenues allowed elites to divert public funds with limited oversight. The economy became heavily dependent on oil, reducing incentives to diversify agriculture, manufacturing, and industry. This reliance made Nigeria vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil prices, contributing to budget crises, inflation, and debt accumulation.
Economic Reforms and Social Costs
Faced with fiscal crises, military governments implemented structural adjustment policies in the 1980s and 1990s. These programmes included currency devaluation, subsidy reductions, and public sector retrenchment. While intended to stabilise the economy, they imposed significant hardships on ordinary Nigerians, increasing poverty, unemployment, and inequality. With political participation limited, citizens had little say in the reforms imposed upon them.
Suppression of Labour and Civil Society
Trade unions, professional associations, and civil society organisations were heavily restricted under military rule. Strikes were banned, wage negotiations curtailed, and protests suppressed. By removing these feedback mechanisms, military governments weakened industrial relations and public confidence, further destabilising the economy and slowing growth.
Investor Confidence and Legitimacy Challenges
Frequent coups, abrupt policy shifts, and weak legal protections undermined both domestic and foreign investment. Capital flight increased as elites sought security abroad, while foreign investors required higher risk premiums. Without electoral legitimacy or public participation, military rulers struggled to secure compliance with economic policies, leaving reforms only partially effective and often unpopular.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
Military governments in Nigeria promised economic transformation but repeatedly failed to deliver sustainable stability. Concentrated power, institutional fragility, corruption, resource dependence, and social exclusion created persistent economic challenges. Nigeria’s experience demonstrates that stability cannot be imposed solely through authority; it requires strong institutions, inclusive governance, and public trust.
Author’s Note
Nigeria’s military era is a reminder that force cannot replace governance. The promise of discipline and order under military rule could not offset institutional weaknesses, corruption, and social exclusion. Economic stability requires continuity, participation, and diversified development, lessons that remain vital for Nigeria today.
References
Ake, C. Democracy and Development in Africa. Brookings Institution.
Falola, T., and Heaton, M. A History of Nigeria. Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, P. Growing Apart. Oil, Politics, and Economic Change in Indonesia and Nigeria. University of Michigan Press.
