Nigeria Heads to Bangkok to Attract Investors

In July 2007, I went to the second session of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Thailand. It was my first real experience of Bangkok. I remember the city for its contrasts: the poverty and the wealth, the chaos and the beauty, the old next to the new. It was a place that stayed in my mind.

Almost twenty years later, Bangkok is back on my radar for a different reason.

Next week, Nigeria’s top economic leaders will fly to Bangkok. Dr. Taiwo Oyedele, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, will be there with a message of hope. He will be joined by Dr. Jumoke Oduwole, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment. Together, they will tell investors at the 2026 World Bank/International Monetary Fund Annual Meetings that Nigeria is full of opportunities. They want to show that Nigeria is a place where capital can come, grow, and make money.

To show their commitment, the Federal Ministry of Finance has created a bright, animated landing page on its website. It has a countdown clock and details about their plans for the Bangkok trip. The government says it will present 23 projects needing a total of $42.7 billion. These projects span transport, energy and gas, agriculture, industry, housing, and urban services.

It is normal for a government to seek out investors. In fact, Nigeria is attracting some capital. The IMF reports that Nigeria’s financial account had a net inflow of about $5.9 billion in 2025, mostly from portfolio investments. The net foreign direct investment rose to about $2.8 billion, still under one percent of GDP.

The IMF also highlights the need for a trustworthy macroeconomic and foreign-exchange framework, stable regulations, dependable infrastructure, and security to encourage more foreign direct investment. These are not issues that a flashy presentation can fix. They need real progress that investors can see, check, and trust.

Yes, Nigeria can bring in money, but not enough long-term investors. Portfolio capital can move around quickly when rates, exchange rates, and market conditions change. But a factory, railway, power plant, logistics network, or industrial site cannot be moved so easily. These are the kinds of investments Nigeria wants to attract in Bangkok.

Yet, it is strange that Nigeria is always looking for capital. London, New York, Washington, France, and now Bangkok.

We still do not know how much investment will come from President Bola Tinubu’s recent meetings with investors in France. This uncertainty matters, especially now when investors are weighing Nigeria’s opportunities against the risks involved.

This brings up a question Nigeria should think about before another team boards another plane. If the opportunity is as good as we say, why does Nigeria frequently have to go abroad to make its case?

This question is more revealing than any presentation. It pushes the government to think about what investors are worried about, not just what Nigeria wants to offer.

Nigeria does not need another sales pitch. It needs to show investors that the risks of doing business in the country can be identified, understood, and, most importantly, reduced.

These risks are at three levels: the country, the project, and the cost of making it work.

At the country level, the investor wants to know: Can I get my money out? Can I trust the rules? Can I enforce my rights? Are the courts fast, or does justice take time?

At the project level, the questions are: Can I price the risk? Can the project create steady cash flows? Can the infrastructure support it?

These questions decide whether an opportunity is worth the investment. The issue is that investors are pricing both Nigeria and the projects on the table. A great railway project can still seem unattractive if investors think the surrounding risks will overshadow its economics. A project’s potential cannot be separated from the environment in which it must operate.

Then there's the cost of making the investment work. Take a hypothetical investor wanting to build a top-notch cancer hospital in Nigeria. This investment could help Nigerians and patients from other African countries. But the investor does not just look at the cost of land, building the hospital, and buying medical equipment. The investor must also consider the cost of running the hospital.

What will it cost to ensure a steady electricity supply? How predictable is the process of bringing in specialized medical equipment through Apapa Wharf? Will port clearance and other procedures be smooth, or will delays increase costs? Can the hospital count on reliable internet access? What extra expenses will be needed to keep staff, patients, and equipment safe?

Every workaround for unreliable infrastructure, slow processes, or poor security adds to the cost of doing business.

This is why Nigeria’s infrastructure problem is not just a development issue. It is an investment-cost issue.

This is what Oyedele and Oduwole should focus on. The more urgent task is to make those projects attractive to investors through better planning, trustworthy guarantees, stable regulations, suitable local-currency financing, stronger project sponsors, clear procurement processes, and ways to make risks measurable and, when possible, transferable.

A roadshow can introduce projects to investors and spark interest. But it cannot fix the conditions that influence whether those investors will commit their money. That needs coordinated action across government, trustworthy institutions, and a willingness to tackle the real issues that make doing business in Nigeria costly and uncertain.

At the end of the day, Nigeria does not need to get better at telling investors that the country is a good opportunity. It needs to get better at making that opportunity impossible to ignore.