Presidency, Transparency international, Atiku Clash over US Report on Nigeria’s Public Finance

According to the US report, “the (Tinubu-led) government made its enacted budget and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the public, including online, but did not publish its executive budget proposal within a reasonable period.”

The report noted that “…budget documents did not provide a substantially complete picture of the government’s revenues and expenditures, or break down expenditures to support executive offices in the budget.Actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget,” the report said.”

The report also criticised the Office of the Auditor-General, stating that it did not meet international standards of independence and did not publish substantive reports.

The report criticised Nigeria’s budget process, stating that official budget documents failed to present a substantially complete picture of government revenues and expenditures.

It said the Federal Government did not provide sufficient details on revenue sources or adequately break down expenditure across ministries and executive offices, making it difficult for citizens and oversight institutions to understand how public resources were generated and spent fully.

The report further faulted the government for failing to publish its Executive Budget Proposal within the internationally accepted timeframe that would allow public scrutiny before legislative approval.

It equally faulted Nigeria’s public procurement system, saying procurement contract information remained largely inaccessible to the public. Although it acknowledged that Nigeria had legal procedures governing the award of natural resource licences, the report said critical details of concessions—including the companies involved, locations, duration and contractual terms—were not publicly disclosed after approvals.

The report further introduced a new transparency benchmark requiring governments to disclose the terms and conditions of sovereign loans, including liabilities and collateral arrangements. While Nigeria was commended for publishing information on public debt obligations, the State Department stopped short of concluding that the country had fully met the new requirement.

Despite its criticisms, the report acknowledged that Nigeria publishes its enacted budget and end-of-year financial reports online, makes debt information publicly available and operates a Sovereign Wealth Fund under a legal framework that discloses its funding sources and withdrawal mechanisms.

However, it maintained that those measures were insufficient to meet the minimum fiscal transparency threshold.

To improve its performance, the report urged Nigeria to publish executive budget proposals earlier, provide comprehensive breakdowns of government revenues and expenditures, align actual spending with approved budgets, strengthen the independence of the Auditor-General’s office, publish audit reports promptly and improve public access to procurement information.

The report stressed that fiscal transparency is fundamental to good governance because it promotes accountability, strengthens investor confidence, reduces corruption risks and enables citizens to monitor how public funds are spent.

Globally, major economies including China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Ukraine also failed the assessment, while countries such as Bangladesh, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Liberia, Libya, Niger, São Tomé and Príncipe and Senegal were recognised for making significant progress.

Nigeria was grouped alongside Algeria, Angola, Uganda, Tanzania, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Sierra Leone and Togo among countries that made no significant progress.

In his assessment of the report, former Vice President of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, said he has been vindicated by the recent report by the United States Department of State highlighting concerns over fiscal transparency in Nigeria, with specific reference to the federal government’s failure to disclose revenues and expenditures.

Atiku has consistently called out the Bola Tinubu-led administration for its failure to uphold the basic standards of fiscal transparency, accountability, and disclosure required in a modern democracy.

It also aligns with Atiku’s concerns about discrepancies between Nigeria’s approved budget and the actual revenues and expenditures recorded during implementation.

This is precisely what Atiku Abubakar has been saying for years: that Nigerians are being kept in the dark about how public resources are generated and spent.

Atiku had maintained that without full disclosure of how public funds are earned and spent, Nigeria cannot attract investment, fight corruption, or build public trust.

“Transparency is not a slogan. It is the foundation of good governance,”  he had said in one of his several interventions on the issue.

“This report confirms what we have been saying that Nigerians deserve to know where every kobo is coming from and where it is being spent. They are our resources and not the resources of President Bola Tinubu and his family and friends,” Atiku said.

The former Vice President stressed that fiscal transparency is a key benchmark for investors, donor agencies, and credit rating firms, reminding that our economy also relies heavily on foreign investment and multilateral support to fund infrastructure and social programmes.

He reiterated that publishing detailed, timely data on revenue from oil, taxes, and borrowing, and on how that money is spent is critical to restoring confidence amid rising debt and inflation.