The Bola Ahmed Tinubu-led Federal Government has denied claims that it spent more than ₦8 trillion, estimated at about two per cent of Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), outside the approved national budget.
In a statement issued on Sunday by the Federal Ministry of Finance, the government described the claims as incorrect and capable of misleading Nigerians about the management of public finances.
The statement, signed by the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, followed public commentary linked to observations attributed to the International Monetary Fund’s representative in Nigeria and the Fund’s 2026 Article IV Consultation Report.
The government insisted that it does not operate a “shadow budget” or spend public funds outside constitutional and statutory financial procedures.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Federal Government does not operate a ‘shadow budget’ or expend public funds outside the constitutional and statutory framework established for public finance,” the statement read.
The government cited Sections 80 to 83 and 162 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which regulate the withdrawal and expenditure of public funds.
It said Federal Government expenditure was undertaken through Appropriation Acts, Supplementary Appropriation Acts and other statutory authorities approved by the National Assembly.
The ministry also explained that multi-year capital projects, which may span several budget cycles, were implemented in line with existing laws and approved capital rollover provisions where applicable.
“These are recognised features of public financial management and should not be misconstrued as expenditures outside the budget,” the government said.
It challenged those alleging that trillions of naira were secretly spent to identify specific projects allegedly executed without appropriation or legal authority.
“It is inaccurate to suggest that trillions of naira have been secretly spent outside legislative approval.
“Such allegations should have identified the specific projects purportedly executed without appropriation or legal authority and present credible evidence in support of the claim.
“To be meaningful, assertions of this magnitude must be supported by verifiable facts rather than conjecture,” the ministry added.
The government said it was important to distinguish between appropriation, expenditure authorisation, financing and fiscal reporting when analysing Nigeria’s public finances.
According to the ministry, the country’s public finance framework includes statutory transfers, first-line charges and intervention mechanisms created by Acts of the National Assembly.
These include statutory allocations and contributions to development commissions and other agencies established by law, as well as the cost of collection and administration retained by designated revenue-generating agencies.
The government also listed capital expenditure approved in separate budgets for some agencies and the Federal Capital Territory, special interventions for security, infrastructure and disaster response, as well as debt service obligations and other statutory transfers.
“These expenditures are neither secret nor illegal. They are established by law, disclosed in various fiscal reports, and subject to applicable oversight, audit and accountability mechanisms,” the ministry said.
It explained that the treatment of some expenditures for reporting purposes could differ from their presentation in the annual Appropriation Act, particularly under international statistical and reporting standards adopted by the government.
“Such classification differences should not be misrepresented as evidence of unlawful expenditure,” it added.
The Federal Government also rejected suggestions that the disputed amount represented an increase in the country’s budget deficit.
According to the ministry, a fiscal deficit is determined by the relationship between total government revenues and total expenditure.
It argued that the financing mechanism adopted for a capital project did not automatically increase the fiscal deficit.
“Whether a capital project is financed through annual appropriations, supplementary appropriations, statutory transfers, approved intervention mechanisms, or other lawful financing arrangements does not, by itself, increase the fiscal deficit,” the government stated.
The ministry said the IMF’s observation focused mainly on the comprehensiveness, timing and presentation of fiscal reports rather than the legality of government expenditure.
