By Nnaoke Ufere, PhD
Since taking office, Bola Ahmed Tinubu has turned foreign travel into a stage-managed spectacle. Each arrival is marked by grand airport receptions, gun salutes, red carpets, choreographed diplomatic greetings, and state dinners designed for maximum visibility. The imagery projects access, relevance, and control to people back home in Nigeria.
In a society that still places undue value on validation from Western powers, a handshake or photo opportunity with foreign leaders is often mistaken for real influence. These staged moments are then used to project strength and legitimacy at home.
When a president has lost public trust, when policies continue to fail, and reelection is on the horizon, foreign trips become a tool for image laundering and repair. They serve as a substitute for credibility that no longer exists at home. This pattern defines Tinubu’s presidency. He has refined it into a method, using foreign visits as a political elixir when the nation is under pressure, a way to reset the narrative without fixing the underlying problems.
At home, conditions have worsened. Inflation has eroded incomes, and food, medicine and rent prices have risen beyond the reach of many citizens. Insecurity remains widespread, with repeated reports of killings across the country, including 23 people killed in Maiduguri while the President was on a state visit to Britain. Public frustration is rising.
Since May 2023, Tinubu has made well over 25 foreign trips across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas, excluding personal trips for health checkups. Each trip is framed as a breakthrough moment for investment, trade and global partnership.
What have all these trips actually delivered for Nigerians?
The answer, based on the agreements tied to these trips, is very little. Beyond the optics, the record shows no material shift in our economic direction. His current state visit to Britain follows the same script, with strong visuals and polished messaging, but no evidence yet of outcomes that will change conditions at home.
I have carefully reviewed the major foreign trips tied to financial “agreements.” Across ten documented trips since taking office, the pattern is consistent: announcements are large, commitments are vague, and little has been delivered.
In nearly all the bilateral agreements, Nigeria has not seen tangible evidence of investment inflows, increased trade, or measurable economic impact. The optics may have been favorable, but the results on the ground tell a different story. These conclusions are reinforced by administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
A History of Empty Gestures and Broken Promises
- In India, in 2023, roughly $14 billion in “investment” was announced by Tinubu after his state visit. These were not binding agreements but private sector pledges with no enforceable timelines. A review of foreign investment inflows indicates that none of these funds has materialized in Nigeria. Not a cent.
- Tinubu has visited the UAE three times between 2023 and 2026 to promote investment and trade. Nigeria removed tariffs on 6,000 goods it already imports, while the UAE removed tariffs on 7,000 products Nigeria barely exports. The $30 billion annual climate finance target lacks binding commitments or enforceable terms. There is no clear evidence of real economic gains, and officials confirm that little has materialized. In economic terms, Tinubu returned empty-handed.
- In November 2023, during Tinubu’s engagements with Germany, a $500 million renewable energy memorandum was announced alongside a gas supply arrangement without a disclosed total value. These were not binding agreements with clear timelines or enforceable terms, and there is no public evidence that the announced commitments have translated into actual investment inflows into Nigeria. Again, another empty agreement.
- In 2024, during Tinubu’s visit to Qatar, he referenced up to $300 billion in potential investments by Qatar across multiple sectors in Nigeria. These were non-binding expressions of interest, not signed agreements with clear terms or timelines. Tinubu presented them as concrete commitments, but there is no public evidence, according to the administration officials, that any meaningful portion has translated into actual investment inflows into Nigeria. Another empty gesture.
- In August 2024, during Tinubu’s visit to Equatorial Guinea, a bilateral agreement was announced for the Gulf of Guinea gas pipeline project, estimated at $25 billion with a capacity of 30 billion cubic meters per year. Since then, there has been no final framework, no implementation plan, and no construction activity. Officials say it has not moved beyond initial discussions.
- During Tinubu’s visit to China in September 2024, broad strategic agreements were announced alongside a $3.3 billion industrial project. Nearly three years on, the project appears stalled, with no visible progress or confirmed execution, and may not proceed.
- France announced over €300 million in development finance commitments, structured as project-tied funding disbursed over time rather than a lump sum. It remains unclear how much has actually been released, despite multiple trips to Paris by Tinubu, and there is no transparent public accounting of disbursements.
- In August 2025, during Tinubu’s visit to Brazil, officials outlined several headline figures: a proposed $4.5 billion investment in the agriculture value chain, a €950 million Green Imperative Programme, and up to $30 billion in broader investment prospects across sectors. There were also discussions around a possible $1 billion Petrobras re-entry into Nigeria’s oil sector. Despite the scale of these announcements, there is no public evidence that any of these commitments have translated into concrete investment activity or measurable impact in Nigeria.
- In January 2026, during Tinubu’s visit to Türkiye, nine agreements were announced without tangible financial commitments. The $5 billion trade target reflected an aspiration for increased bilateral trade, not committed investment or guaranteed inflows. Since the signing of the memoranda of understanding, no tangible outcomes have materialized, and there are no immediate economic gains to show for the visit. sit.
- During Tinubu’s state visit to the United Kingdom this week, the deal has been presented as a major outcome. It is not. It is a £746 million export credit arrangement in which Nigeria takes on the debt while British firms secure the contracts. At least £236 million is tied directly to UK suppliers, including £70 million for British Steel. This is not investment flowing into Nigeria’s economy. It is financing structured to support foreign industry, with repayment obligations placed on Nigeria.
Taken together, these foreign trips and so-called agreements lead to a clear conclusion. What has been presented as investment is, in most cases, not investment. It is a mix of debt obligations, financing structures that route most of the capital back to the originating country, and non-binding memoranda with no enforceable terms.
Tinubu and his team should confront a basic question: why have most of the announced bilateral agreements on investment and trade produced little or no measurable results in Nigeria? Why is the conversion rate from announcements to actual inflows so low?
The answer is straightforward. Our economic fundamentals are weak. Investors do not commit serious capital into an environment where policy is unpredictable, contracts are difficult to enforce, and returns are uncertain. Nigeria presents all of these risks at once.
Tinubu has not built credibility with global investors. Policy direction has been inconsistent and execution uneven. The operating environment remains constrained by electricity shortages, weak infrastructure, and high logistics costs. Insecurity continues to raise the cost of doing business. Corruption undermines trust and distorts outcomes. At the same time, rising debt levels and foreign exchange constraints make it difficult for investors to recover and repatriate capital.
In this context, memoranda and headline figures announced after foreign trips carry little weight. Serious investors look for stability, clear rules, and the ability to move capital in and out without friction. Those conditions are not in place at scale. As a result, announcements abroad rarely translate into real investment inflows at home.
The conclusion is clear. Capital is not avoiding Nigeria because of a lack of agreements. It is avoiding Nigeria because the domestic environment is too risky. Until these structural issues are addressed, foreign trips will continue to generate headlines without results. The work that matters is internal.
*About the Author
Nnaoke Ufere is a leading voice in African public thought and policy. He writes a weekly opinion column for the African Mind Journal, where his work shapes national conversations on leadership, governance, and reform. He is the author of Covenant With Nigerians: Reversing Our Country’s Decline. Nnaoke graduated from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka with a first class honors degree in Electrical/Electronic Engineering in 1981. A Harvard MBA alumnus and PhD holder in Strategic Management from Case Western Reserve University, Ufere is an influential author, public intellectual, and global development analyst whose insights on U.S.-Africa relations and institutional accountability continue to challenge the status quo and inspire change.
