The Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II, has intensified scrutiny of Nigeria’s fiscal direction, questioning why the federal government continues to accumulate debt despite removing fuel subsidies, a reform widely expected to ease pressure on public finances.

In a public address posted on social media, the former central bank governor restated his opposition to the subsidy regime, calling it unsustainable.

“I have always said the subsidy regime was unsustainable. We cannot continue supporting foreign refineries when we are an oil-producing country, keeping refineries open abroad while we’re not running our own,” he said.

Yet Sanusi’s central concern lies in what has followed the policy shift. “Secondly, the subsidy has been removed, but what is being done with the savings? We should be seeing fiscal consolidation. You cannot eliminate wastage and still continue borrowing,” he said. “People need to see the benefits. If subsidy payments have stopped and funds are available, why are we still borrowing repeatedly? What exactly are we borrowing for?”

His remarks come against the backdrop of a rapidly expanding debt profile under President Bola Tinubu. Nigeria’s total public debt stood at roughly N159 trillion (about $110 billion) as of December 2025, one of the highest levels in the country’s history. A significant portion of that accumulation has occurred during Tinubu’s tenure, driven by aggressive external borrowing, approval of multi-billion-dollar loan packages, and continued reliance on multilateral financing to plug budget deficits and fund infrastructure.

Within months, the administration has secured approvals for over $6 billion in fresh external borrowing, alongside a broader borrowing plan exceeding $20 billion. Additional World Bank loans, estimated at over $6 billion in the first 16 months of the administration, have further added to the debt stock. The latest request, a $516 million facility for the Sokoto–Badagry Superhighway, underscores the pace at which new obligations are being taken on.

The rising debt burden is increasingly intersecting with Nigeria’s weak revenue position. A substantial share of government income is now absorbed by debt servicing, leaving limited fiscal space for capital investment and social spending.

“It’s not enough to simply say subsidy was removed. When you get to a point where 100% of your revenue goes into debt servicing, you cannot continue. Where will the money come from?” Sanusi said.

That dynamic has become a central concern among economists. While subsidy removal was expected to reduce recurrent expenditure and free up resources, the anticipated fiscal relief has been diluted by continued borrowing and rising debt obligations. In effect, savings from subsidy reforms risk being offset by higher interest payments and debt repayments.

Sanusi also questioned the sequencing of reforms, warning that policy timing has compounded macroeconomic pressures.

“For me, removing subsidy or liberalizing exchange rates are good interventions. But were they done at the right time? That’s a key question,” he said.

He cautioned that implementing such measures in a loose monetary environment could destabilize the currency.

“However, if you remove subsidy and liberalize exchange rates in an environment of very loose monetary conditions, before tightening money supply, the naira can fall sharply,” he said.

Concerns over fiscal management extend to how borrowed funds are deployed. The federal government’s push to finance large-scale infrastructure projects, including the Sokoto–Badagry Superhighway and the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, has drawn criticism over prioritization and transparency.

Economist Ndubisi Nwokoma described the borrowing strategy as “fiscal rascality,” arguing that existing infrastructure should take precedence.

“I recently travelled to the East, and the roads are in terrible condition. Why not focus on maintaining them? Even if we must borrow, Nigerians should see tangible improvements in major expressways. If that happens, people will not complain as much,” he told Daily Trust.

He warned that some projects risk becoming “white elephants,” adding, “Why not fix what we have before embarking on new roads? … There was no transparent tendering process. This points to fiscal recklessness.”

Procurement concerns have further amplified criticism. Both flagship road projects have been linked to Hitech Construction, part of the Chagoury Group, raising questions about competitive bidding and value for money, particularly when financed through debt.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar echoed those concerns, warning that borrowing without transparency could deepen fiscal vulnerabilities.

“At a time when Nigeria is already groaning under the weight of unsustainable debt, the resort to yet another foreign loan, without transparent terms, clear cost-benefit analysis, and a credible repayment framework, raises profound questions about prudence and accountability,” he said.

He added, “What Nigerians expect is not just ambitious projects, but responsible financing. Development must not become a euphemism for deepening debt traps that generations yet unborn will be forced to repay.”

Atiku also questioned the procurement process, warning against what he described as a pattern of insider contracting. He called on the National Assembly, led by Godswill Akpabio, to subject the loan request to rigorous scrutiny.

The broader economic picture reveals a structural imbalance. Nigeria’s revenue-to-GDP ratio remains among the lowest globally, limiting the government’s ability to fund expenditure without resorting to debt. At the same time, rising interest costs, both domestic and external, are increasing the burden of servicing existing obligations.

Sanusi pointed to the contradiction at the heart of current policy. “Today, we have a situation where we have a domestic refinery, we’re not importing petroleum products, and we’re even exporting to Europe. This is very good for the economy,” he said.

However, he maintained that such gains must translate into fiscal improvement, not continued borrowing.

The tension between reform and outcomes is becoming more pronounced. Subsidy removal and exchange rate liberalization were intended to stabilize the economy and restore investor confidence. So far, there are little or no visible improvements in fiscal discipline, infrastructure delivery, or cost of living. That has fueled public skepticism.

Caocao Inc, the mobility arm of Geely Holding Group, plans to deploy thousands of robotaxis globally from next year, intensifying competition in a market increasingly defined by autonomous vehicle ambitions, according to its chief executive.

Chief executive Gong Xin told Reuters at the Beijing auto show that the company is positioning itself for large-scale autonomous deployment across multiple regions, including Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong, and five mainland Chinese cities, beginning in 2027.

The expansion sets up a direct competitive track with Tesla, led by Elon Musk, which is also developing a purpose-built autonomous vehicle, the Cybercab. Both firms are converging on the same concept: dedicated robotaxi fleets designed from the ground up rather than modified consumer vehicles.

Caocao’s long-term roadmap is more explicit on scale. The company expects large-scale delivery of its Geely-built Eva Cab robotaxi in 2028, with fleet expansion reaching 100,000 vehicles by 2030. Gong said production, delivery, and deployment will be closely aligned, suggesting a compressed rollout cycle once regulatory and operational conditions are in place.

The Eva Cab is seen as a different design philosophy from most current autonomous test fleets. Unlike retrofitted passenger vehicles, it is purpose-built for ride-hailing, with a simplified cabin layout, reduced storage compartments, and no enclosed door pockets. The design aims to lower costs and improve durability while reducing passenger misuse and maintenance complexity.

Gong said the stripped-down configuration allows the vehicle to be priced below traditional private cars, although he did not disclose exact figures. The focus on cost control is central to Caocao’s approach, which treats robotaxis less as premium technology showcases and more as scalable transport infrastructure.

This contrasts with many existing robotaxi programmes, which rely on modified versions of mass-market vehicles. Those systems often face constraints in interior optimization, energy efficiency, and cost scaling, limiting their ability to reach high-volume deployment without significant redesign.

Caocao’s ambition is underpinned by its parent company’s industrial footprint. Backed by Geely, the company benefits from access to manufacturing capacity and global automotive supply chains, which executives argue will be critical in scaling autonomous fleets competitively.

Gong described the group’s positioning as a structural advantage in the emerging robotaxi market. He said Caocao is aligned with Geely’s international expansion strategy and suggested the company could emerge as one of only a few dominant players in China’s autonomous mobility sector by 2030.

The timeline indicates growing confidence in the commercial viability of driverless transport in China, where regulators have been more open to large-scale autonomous testing than many Western jurisdictions. However, the market is also becoming more crowded, with multiple automakers and tech firms accelerating their own programmes.

Xpeng is also advancing its robotaxi ambitions, with plans to produce hundreds to thousands of autonomous vehicles over the next 12 to 18 months, according to its president, Brian Gu. The company is expected to begin early deployments while still seeking operational partners for global expansion.

The parallel efforts by Caocao and Xpeng come amid a shift among Chinese automakers: a transition from vehicle manufacturing toward integrated mobility services. This evolution reflects both competitive pressure in China’s domestic EV market and the search for higher-margin, recurring revenue models. It also signals a broader global race that is increasingly converging on a shared endpoint. Both Chinese firms and U.S. competitors are now focusing on purpose-built autonomous vehicles rather than retrofitted platforms, suggesting the industry is moving into a second phase of robotaxi development.

On the U.S. side, Tesla’s Cybercab programme remains one of the most visible efforts, with Musk indicating that production will scale gradually before ramping up significantly. The company’s long-term goal is to deploy fully autonomous vehicles at scale, replacing human-driven ride-hailing networks with software-managed fleets.

The emergence of Caocao’s plan introduces a parallel trajectory with different structural advantages. While Tesla is building vertically integrated hardware-software systems, Chinese players like Caocao are leveraging established manufacturing ecosystems and state-backed industrial capacity to reduce costs and accelerate deployment timelines.

The competitive overlap is becoming clearer. Both sides are targeting similar use cases, urban mobility networks operating at high utilization rates with minimal human intervention, but are approaching them through different industrial models.

Investors and industry participants now face a market that is no longer speculative in concept but increasingly defined by execution timelines, regulatory readiness, and fleet economics.

Caocao’s announcement adds another layer to that race as it does not just signal entry into autonomous mobility, but an attempt to define one of its most critical variables: cost per kilometer at scale. Industry experts say that metric, more than technological capability alone, is likely to determine which players ultimately dominate the global robotaxi market.

Shares of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company climbed 5% to a fresh record on Friday after Taiwan’s regulator unveiled plans to relax limits on how much domestic funds can allocate to a single stock — a move that is set to channel additional capital into the island’s most dominant company.

The revised framework allows domestic equity funds and actively managed ETFs focused on Taiwanese equities to invest up to 25% of their assets in a single company, provided that the stock carries a weighting above 10% on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. The previous 10% cap had long constrained fund managers, forcing them to underweight TSMC relative to its index dominance.

Practically, the rule change removes a structural ceiling that has limited institutional exposure to TSMC for years. Given the company’s heavy weighting in local benchmarks, fund managers are now likely to rebalance portfolios, increasing allocations to better reflect index composition or to express higher conviction. That mechanical reallocation alone could generate sustained inflows into the stock over the coming quarters.

The timing of the policy shift amplifies its impact. It comes when TSMC is already riding a strong earnings cycle, underpinned by surging demand for advanced semiconductors tied to artificial intelligence. The company reported a 58% jump in first-quarter profit last week, with net income reaching 572.48 billion New Taiwan dollars, its fourth consecutive quarter of record earnings, and above market expectations.

The earnings momentum is being driven by TSMC’s central role in the global AI supply chain. It manufactures cutting-edge chips for clients, including Apple and Nvidia, whose processors are critical to data centers, machine learning systems, and high-performance computing. As demand for AI infrastructure accelerates, so too does the need for advanced fabrication capacity, an area where TSMC maintains a clear technological lead.

This combination of policy-driven inflows and structural demand growth is boosting the company’s market dominance. It also underlines a shift in how capital is being allocated within Taiwan’s equity market. By allowing greater concentration in leading stocks, regulators are effectively acknowledging that a handful of companies, led by TSMC, now account for a disproportionate share of growth and investor interest.

However, the change also sharpens concentration risk. TSMC already exerts significant influence on the Taiwanese market, and increased funding allocations will deepen that dependence. Portfolio performance, index movements, and even retail investor sentiment may become increasingly tied to the company’s trajectory.

From a market structure perspective, this creates a feedback loop. Strong fundamentals attract capital, regulatory changes enable larger allocations, and increased inflows push valuations higher, further entrenching the company’s dominance. While this dynamic can sustain rallies, it can also magnify volatility if sentiment shifts.

Valuation is emerging as a secondary consideration. As capital flows intensify, the question is not just how fast TSMC can grow, but whether earnings can keep pace with rising expectations. The current cycle is supported by long-term trends, AI adoption, cloud expansion, and advanced computing, but the semiconductor industry remains inherently cyclical, with periods of oversupply and demand correction.

There is also a geopolitical dimension underpinning TSMC’s rise. The company sits at the center of global efforts to secure semiconductor supply chains, with governments and corporations alike relying on its manufacturing capabilities. That strategic importance has made it both indispensable and exposed, particularly amid ongoing tensions over technology access and trade.

For now, the near-term outlook remains favorable. Demand for advanced nodes continues to outstrip supply, pricing remains firm, and customers are committing significant capital to secure production capacity. The regulatory easing adds further support by increasing domestic investor participation at a time when global capital is already heavily invested in the AI theme.

The rally in TSMC shares, therefore, indicates a convergence of forces: strong earnings, structural demand from AI, and a regulatory shift that unlocks additional liquidity. Together, they are augmenting the company’s position not just as a market leader, but as the central pillar of Taiwan’s equity landscape.