NIGERIA’S JAPA CRISIS AND GOVERNMENT’S IMPOSSIBLE CONTRADICTION

By the Newstexts International Desk | August 2, 2026

---

On July 25, 2026, President Bola Tinubu addressed Nigerian medical professionals who had flown home from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, and South Africa to provide free specialist healthcare across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones. He called them “one of Nigeria’s greatest assets.” He spoke of surgeons in London, researchers in Boston, nurses in Japan, laboratory scientists in China. He urged them to invest. He promised institutional support. He asked them to stay engaged.

Six days earlier, the Nigerian Medical Association had released a figure that sat uncomfortably alongside the president’s warm words: 94,000 doctors and nurses have left Nigeria since the Japa phenomenon began. Sixteen thousand doctors departed in the last five years alone.

As of this year, only approximately 55,000 doctors remain in a country of more than 220 million people.

The World Health Organisation recommends one doctor for every 600 patients. Nigeria’s ratio is closer to one per 4,000, and in rural areas the gap is wider still.

The government’s National Diaspora Day celebration — held annually on July 25 — has become a precise symbol of the contradiction at the heart of Nigerian governance. Nigeria is simultaneously the country its professionals are desperate to escape and the country that holds annual ceremonies to celebrate the people who escaped.

It calls the departed its greatest assets while presiding over the conditions that make departure rational. It asks for investment and expertise from abroad while underfunding, under-equipping, and under-paying the professionals who stayed.

The diaspora, increasingly aware of its own leverage, is watching all of this with a sharpening eye.

The word japa is Yoruba slang, literally meaning to run, escape, flee. In Nigerian popular culture over the past decade it has come to denote something more specific: the decision by educated, skilled, and ambitious Nigerians to leave the country permanently or semi-permanently in pursuit of opportunities that Nigeria has failed to provide.

Japa is not new. Nigerians have been emigrating since the oil boom years of the 1970s, when the first substantial wave of professionals went abroad for postgraduate training and many did not return. The difference today is the scale, the speed, the breadth of professions affected, and the openly stated reason: Nigeria is not liveable at an acceptable standard for people with options.

The triggers of the current wave are specific and datable. They begin in earnest around 2015, deepen during the economic contraction of 2016 to 2019, intensify through the COVID-19 period, and reach what analysts now describe as generational proportions after the 2023 fuel subsidy removal, naira float, and resulting inflation shock that pushed official headline inflation to above 34 percent by late 2024 — the worst in a generation. Food prices doubled in some categories. Transport costs tripled. Electricity, already unreliable, became dramatically more expensive without becoming more available.

The people who had the skills to leave, left. They still are.

No sector illustrates the human cost of mass emigration more starkly than healthcare, and no statistics in this story should be read casually.

Nigeria has the highest maternal mortality burden on earth in absolute numbers — an estimated 82,000 maternal deaths in 2020, representing more than a quarter of all maternal deaths globally. The infant mortality rate stands at approximately 72 deaths per 1,000 live births. These numbers will not improve while the health workforce continues to haemorrhage.

The NHS in the United Kingdom is, by every measure, one of the largest employers of Nigerian medical graduates. The Nursing and Midwifery Council in Britain has reported consistent year-on-year increases in Nigerian nurses joining its register. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar have been systematically recruiting Nigerian doctors and nurses through formal and semi-formal channels, often offering salaries 10 to 20 times what the Nigerian government pays. Canada and Australia have accelerated immigration pathways for healthcare workers that Nigerian graduates have pursued aggressively.

The professionals who remain in Nigeria are stretched to a breaking point that is itself generating the next wave of departures. Doctors report patient ratios of 1 to 10,000 in public hospitals. Nurses describe 24-hour shifts without adequate rest or supplies. Burnout, described in clinical terms by those who study it and in far more visceral terms by those experiencing it, is near-universal among senior staff in public healthcare facilities.

Dr Titilola Ibiyemi, Medical Director of the Federal Medical Centre in Abeokuta, put it plainly at the NMA’s 2026 Annual Conference in Ibadan: “Nigeria can no longer afford a business-as-usual approach to healthcare administration.” She noted that while primary healthcare centres account for 75 percent of Nigeria’s health facilities, only around 20 percent of the country’s nearly 30,000 such centres are fully functional. Nigeria currently spends approximately 3.86 percent of GDP on healthcare — far below the 15 percent benchmark it committed to under the Abuja Declaration of 2001, a commitment made, incidentally, in Nigeria’s own capital city.

The Tinubu government has announced a 160 percent increase in medical school admissions between 2023 and 2025. The arithmetic behind that announcement is sobering: training a doctor takes at least six years. Specialist training takes longer. If the conditions driving departure are not changed, the graduates produced by expanded admissions will simply represent the next cohort of trained professionals to leave. Expanding the pipeline means nothing if the exit at the other end remains wide open.

Here is the uncomfortable truth that Nigerian economic policy cannot escape: the same Japa wave that is hollowing out the healthcare system, the university sector, the technology industry, and the engineering professions is also the most important source of foreign currency inflow that Nigeria has.

Personal remittances to Nigeria reached approximately $20.93 billion in 2024, an 8.9 percent increase over the previous year. International money transfer operator inflows surged 43.5 percent to $4.73 billion in the same period. The Central Bank of Nigeria is targeting $1 billion in monthly diaspora inflows as a formal policy goal. By comparison, Nigeria’s entire formal tax revenue in many recent years has struggled to reach the equivalent of half that annual remittance figure.

These are not small numbers. For millions of Nigerian households, the monthly wire transfer from a relative in the UK, the US, Canada, or the Gulf is not supplementary income — it is the primary income. It pays school fees, hospital bills, house rent requiring one to two years upfront in advance as is now common in Nigerian cities, and the daily food budget in a country where 63.5 percent of the population lives on less than $3.65 per day.

The naira’s dramatic weakening — from roughly 450 to the dollar in 2022 to over 1,500 at its worst in 2024, before stabilising around 1,370 to 1,380 in mid-2026 — has made diaspora remittances even more valuable in practical terms. A nurse in Manchester sending £500 home each month is now delivering purchasing power that no salary a Nigerian public institution pays could match.

The government has grasped this. It has created formal diaspora investment instruments, diaspora bond structures, and diaspora savings accounts designed to capture a greater share of that capital in the formal financial system rather than through the informal channels and fintech platforms that currently carry a significant portion of transfers. The CBN’s drive to channel more remittances through official International Money Transfer Operators is in part a foreign exchange management strategy — a way of shoring up reserves and the naira simultaneously.

But the diaspora is not naive. It has watched currency policies shift, watched the naira lose value in ways that eroded the real value of naira-denominated investments, and watched governance failures consume development funds for decades. The diaspora sends money home because it loves its families. Whether it invests capital in Nigerian institutions at scale depends on whether those institutions can demonstrate trustworthiness over time. That case is still being made.

While the healthcare brain drain has attracted the most political attention, the losses in education, engineering, and technology are equally serious and arguably less reversible in the short term.

Nigerian universities have lost lecturers and professors to foreign institutions at a rate that is restructuring what academic knowledge looks like in the country. Professors of computer science, electrical engineering, economics, and law who built their careers in Nigerian institutions have left for universities in the UK, Canada, the US, and increasingly, Rwanda, Ghana, and South Africa — countries competing aggressively for African academic talent.

The result is seen in student outcomes, research output, and the declining quality of practical technical training. Students graduating from Nigerian engineering programmes increasingly report receiving a theoretical education without hands-on exposure to current industry tools, because the faculty with that exposure are no longer there. The tech sector reports that graduates require 12 to 18 months of intensive in-house remediation before they are productive employees — a cost that many startups cannot absorb and that large multinationals simply bypass by hiring remotely abroad.

The Japa of young technologists is a particularly acute story. Nigeria’s tech ecosystem — which had generated genuine global attention and investment by the early 2020s, with Lagos frequently cited as a serious African tech hub — has seen an outflow of founders, developers, product managers, and designers that has complicated its trajectory. Many have relocated to the UK, Canada, Portugal, and the UAE while maintaining Nigerian client bases and Nigerian startup identities. They are Nigerian companies in everything except the physical location of their core teams. What this means for domestic job creation, tax revenue, and local knowledge accumulation over the next decade is a question no one has honestly answered.

The Tinubu administration has been more engaged on diaspora policy than its predecessors in several respects. NiDCOM under Chair Abike Dabiri-Erewa has driven a series of concrete initiatives: the Diaspora Health Impact Initiative mobilised thousands of medical professionals from multiple countries to provide specialist services across Nigeria in 2026. The National Diaspora Merit Awards, the Diaspora Investment Summit, and the Badagry Door of Return programme are all functional platforms.

The government has committed to simplifying licensing procedures for diaspora doctors who want to work in Nigeria, facilitating locum arrangements, and supporting customs and visa waivers for medical missions. These are not nothing. They represent a genuine attempt to create structured channels for diaspora engagement that go beyond rhetoric.

But the core problem is that all of these programmes address the diaspora as a resource to be leveraged rather than as people who left because Nigeria failed them and who will not return or invest at scale until the failure is corrected.

The fundamental conditions driving Japa — poor remuneration for skilled workers, unreliable electricity, inadequate infrastructure, insecurity, a judicial system that cannot reliably enforce contracts, and a political environment in which policy unpredictability is itself a kind of risk — are not resolved by a National Diaspora Day ceremony or even a well-run medical mission.

Tinubu himself stepped into a telling contradiction in June 2026 when, speaking to young Nigerians, he urged them not to Japa. The same president who has spent the past year publicly appealing to diaspora doctors to “come back and help” told the young people still in Nigeria to resist the impulse to leave. The message he cannot yet deliver is the only one that would work: stay because the country works. That message requires a country that works first.

There is one dimension of diaspora engagement that successive Nigerian governments have consistently failed to deliver, and its absence is now an openly stated grievance in diaspora communities: the right to vote from abroad.

Nigeria has approximately 20 to 25 million citizens living outside the country, by various estimates. They collectively send home more money than the country earns from oil in some years. They pay taxes in their countries of residence, participate in political processes abroad, and maintain deep ties to Nigerian communities. Yet they cannot vote in Nigerian elections.

Bill after bill to enable diaspora voting has been introduced in the National Assembly and stalled, softened, referred to committee, or died quietly in legislative procedures that favour inaction. The opposition to it is institutional and, many analysts argue, deliberate: the existing political class has calculated that a fully engaged, educated, economically independent diaspora electorate would not reliably vote for the candidates and parties that currently dominate Nigerian politics.

Dabiri-Erewa acknowledged at NDD 2026 that the Commission is still “advocating for diaspora voting in the National Assembly.” That sentence — advocating for, in 2026, a right that countries far less wealthy and less diplomatically active than Nigeria granted their diasporas decades ago — is itself a measure of how the political establishment values diaspora participation on its own terms.

The diaspora’s response has been to engage anyway, through civil society organisations, through social media, through the funding of civic campaigns, and through an increasingly organised pressure politics that is beginning to have domestic consequences.

It would be a mistake to read the diaspora simply as a source of grievances or remittances. The 25 million Nigerians abroad are not a monolith. They include wealthy investors with significant capital to deploy, medical professionals deeply committed to improving Nigerian healthcare, tech entrepreneurs running global companies from Lagos or London simultaneously, academics who are actively rebuilding academic partnerships, and young people on student visas who intend to build careers abroad and have no near-term plan to return.

They also include a substantial body of people who would return if the conditions were right. Surveys of diaspora populations consistently show that a significant majority left not because they wanted to live elsewhere permanently but because Nigeria at the time of their departure did not offer a viable path to a stable professional and personal life. Many of them are watching Tinubu’s reforms with cautious attention.

The macroeconomic stabilisation — inflation down from 34 percent to around 15 percent, reserves at $43 billion, the equities market up 55 percent year to date, the naira holding relatively steady — is registering.

But macroeconomic data and lived experience are different things.

The cost of living in Nigerian cities remains at historic highs in naira terms. Food price inflation, driven by insecurity in agricultural belts, transport cost increases, and a weak supply chain, continues to punish urban households. Electricity remains unreliable for most residents and businesses. Security — in the north catastrophically, in the southeast persistently, in the southwest with increasing frequency — cannot be solved by a central bank policy rate adjustment.

The diaspora’s property investment boom, documented clearly in 2026 market data, reveals something precise about diaspora psychology: they are willing to hold assets in Nigeria, to maintain a stake, to keep an option open. They are converting remittances into real estate at an increasing rate. But they are not yet converting their careers, their principal residences, or their children’s education back to Nigeria in the numbers the government’s ceremonies imply.

Nigeria is not the only country managing a diaspora relationship built on a history of institutional failure. The Philippines has built an entire export model around overseas labour. India has channelled diaspora capital and political influence with increasing sophistication. Even Ghana and Kenya, with far smaller diasporas, have made structural progress on diaspora investment frameworks.

What distinguishes Nigeria’s situation is the scale of what has been lost from the most critical public service sectors — health, education, infrastructure — combined with the scale of the population that depends on those services and cannot easily access private alternatives.

When a doctor in the UK sends money home to pay for a parent’s private hospital treatment because the public hospital in their home state no longer has a functioning operating theatre, the transaction captures everything wrong with the current arrangement: the trained person is abroad, the money flows back, and the family still cannot access the public good that the money cannot privately replace for the broader population.

The government’s bet is that economic stabilisation will, over time, change the calculus. Tinubu’s reforms are real, their early results are real, and the pain they caused was also real. If growth reaches and sustains the 4 to 5 percent range, if inflation continues to fall, if the naira holds, if the security situation does not deteriorate further, the argument for returning becomes more credible over time.

But credibility is not the same as certainty, and a generation that watched the Nigerian state consume its parents’ careers and savings is not easily persuaded by macroeconomic projections. They are watching the specifics: are doctors being paid on time? Are the operating theatres being equipped? Is the electricity more reliable? Is the road from the airport to the city worse or better than last time?

Those specifics will determine whether Nigeria’s diaspora remains the country’s most valuable export or whether, over time, it becomes simply the country’s most successful emigration story.

Facebook Comments