A fresh controversy has gripped Nigeria’s fiscal policy space after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) disclosed that public expenditure equivalent to about two percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — roughly N8.8 trillion — was left out of official budget documents. The disclosure, drawn from the Fund’s 2026 Article IV Consultation report, has triggered sharp reactions from the Federal Government and opposition figures, reigniting long-standing concerns about fiscal transparency under President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
Key Highlights
- IMF Resident Representative in Nigeria, Christian Ebeke, disclosed that about 2% of GDP in government spending was not captured in official budget documents.
- Based on Nigeria’s 2025 nominal GDP of N441.5 trillion, the unrecorded expenditure is estimated at approximately N8.83 trillion (about $6.15 billion).
- The Federal Ministry of Finance, led by Taiwo Oyedele, has denied operating a “shadow budget,” describing the claims as a misrepresentation of the IMF’s findings.
- Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have both called for investigations, describing the situation as a case of fiscal impunity and “grand corruption.”
- Civil society group AERE has described the episode as a governance crisis requiring full fiscal accountability, not mere technical compliance.
What the IMF Report Said
Nigeria left about N8.83 trillion in public spending out of its recent official budgets, according to the International Monetary Fund, with the figure calculated from the National Bureau of Statistics’ 2025 nominal GDP figure of N441.5 trillion. The disclosure came from Christian Ebeke, the IMF’s resident representative in Nigeria, who made the comments while addressing business executives during an industry event in Lagos.
The finding implies that public expenditure worth roughly N8.8 trillion may have gone unrecorded in official budget documents, a gap that could obscure the government’s true borrowing requirements and intensify scrutiny of public finance management. According to Ebeke, the unreported spending stems partly from large-scale government projects executed outside the normal budget process, a practice that makes it harder for observers to accurately gauge the country’s fiscal position and public investment levels.
Ebeke was direct about the scale of the discrepancy, noting that around 2% of GDP in expenditure had gone unreported and needed to be properly recorded to eliminate the statistical gap. He further explained that incomplete fiscal reporting weakens coordination between fiscal and monetary authorities, since policymakers are left without a full picture of the government’s actual financing needs.
On a more positive note, Ebeke acknowledged that Nigerian authorities have started addressing the issue by repealing and revising recent budget laws to capture previously unrecorded expenditure, though he stressed that updated implementation reports are still needed to fully reflect these changes. He also cautioned that off-budget spending raises serious concerns around procurement processes, accountability, and oversight.
Importantly, the disclosure followed the IMF’s Article IV consultation on Nigeria, which had commended the federal government for recent macroeconomic reforms that strengthened economic stability and boosted investor confidence — even as the Fund warned that the gains had not yet translated into broad improvements in living standards for ordinary Nigerians.
Nigerian Government’s Response: “Misrepresentation,” Says Finance Ministry
The Federal Government moved swiftly to push back against the growing public narrative. In a statement issued at the weekend, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, rejected the idea that Nigeria operates any form of parallel or hidden spending structure.
The Ministry of Finance stated that recent public commentary alleging that about two per cent of GDP, amounting to over N8 trillion, was spent outside the approved budget was inaccurate and risked misleading Nigerians about the country’s public financial management. The ministry insisted the figures being circulated were based on a misreading of the IMF’s Article IV report and comments from its resident representative.
According to Oyedele, the government does not operate a shadow budget or expend public funds outside the constitutional and statutory framework established for public finance, and there are no hidden expenditures or parallel budgets being run by the Federal Government. He attributed the confusion to differences in statistical treatment and the timing of expenditure recognition across various public finance reporting systems.
The ministry grounded its defence in constitutional provisions, noting that Sections 80 to 83 and 162 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) stipulate that public funds can only be withdrawn and spent in line with the Constitution and laws enacted by the National Assembly. It explained that government spending is carried out through duly enacted Appropriation Acts, Supplementary Appropriation Acts and other statutory authorities approved by the National Assembly, and that multi-year capital projects spanning several budget cycles are implemented under existing laws and approved capital rollover provisions. Such arrangements, the ministry argued, should not be mistaken for spending that falls outside the budget.
Oyedele challenged critics to substantiate their claims rather than rely on general allegations, arguing that it was inaccurate to suggest that trillions of naira had been secretly spent outside legislative approval, and that anyone making such claims should identify specific projects allegedly executed without appropriation and present credible evidence. He added that Nigeria’s fiscal framework provides for statutory transfers, first-line charges and intervention mechanisms established by law, covering areas such as development commission allocations, debt servicing, security interventions, infrastructure projects and disaster response programmes.
On the question of the budget deficit, the ministry was emphatic that the disclosure does not signal a worsening fiscal position. It rejected the suggestion that the reported figure represented an increase in Nigeria’s budget deficit, explaining that a fiscal deficit is determined by the relationship between total government revenue and expenditure, not by the financing mechanism used for approved projects. Rather, the ministry maintained that the IMF’s observations were focused mainly on the comprehensiveness, timing and presentation of Nigeria’s fiscal reporting, rather than on the legality of government spending.
The government also pointed to broader reform efforts as evidence of its commitment to transparency. It recalled that President Tinubu, while presenting the 2026 Appropriation Bill to the National Assembly in December 2025, had already called for an end to the practice of running multiple and overlapping budgets, urging lawmakers to harmonise them into a single, unified framework. Oyedele noted that these reforms have been recognised by the IMF itself, along with other multilateral institutions, credit rating agencies, and global investors.
Closing the ministry’s statement was an appeal for more responsible public discourse. Oyedele stated that mischaracterising technical accounting observations as evidence of unlawful spending does not help public understanding or strengthen democratic accountability, while reaffirming the government’s commitment to the rule of law, transparency, and closer collaboration with the National Assembly and oversight institutions.
Opposition Reaction: Atiku and Obi Demand Investigation
The government’s explanation has done little to quiet the political storm, with two of Nigeria’s most prominent opposition figures — Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi — leading calls for accountability.
Atiku Abubakar: “Fiscal Impunity” and a Call for Probes
In a strongly worded statement issued on Saturday, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate and former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, called for an urgent nationwide investigation into the IMF report, alleging that public expenditures worth about two per cent of Nigeria’s GDP were not reflected in the country’s official budgets. He described the revelation as one of the most consequential acts of fiscal impunity in Nigeria’s recent democratic history, alleging that the unrecorded expenditure amounts to approximately N8.8 trillion.
Atiku linked the disclosure to the economic hardship many Nigerians have endured under recent reforms, arguing that the removal of the fuel subsidy and other painful policy measures had been justified using a narrative of fiscal restraint that the IMF’s findings now appear to contradict. He framed the unrecorded funds as a kind of shadow treasury operating beyond public and legislative view.
As part of his demands, Atiku called on the National Assembly to open investigative hearings into the IMF findings without delay, while urging the Auditor-General of the Federation to carry out a comprehensive audit of all off-budget expenditure. He also renewed allegations concerning roughly N800 billion he claims was improperly deducted from state governments’ statutory allocations, suggesting that both sums together pointed to the assembly of a political war chest ahead of the 2027 general election.
He was similarly cited by other reports as calling on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the National Assembly and the Auditor-General of the Federation to investigate the alleged off-budget spending, on the grounds that the funds were spent without legislative approval or public accountability.
Peter Obi: “Grand Corruption” and Renewed Resignation Call
Nigeria Democratic Congress 2027 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, was equally forceful in his condemnation. In a statement issued Sunday, Obi said the IMF’s disclosure that about N8.83 trillion in 2025 expenditure was missing from the budget meant that spending had escaped legislative oversight and administrative scrutiny entirely, a situation he described as horrible. He drove home the scale of the figure by comparing it to national priorities, noting that the amount exceeded the combined federal budgets for education (N3.52 trillion) and health (N2.38 trillion).
Obi went further, alleging that the IMF’s revelation showed that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) government was grossly corrupt, incompetent and insensitive, and that a responsible government would have used such funds to address the country’s growing poverty and infrastructure gaps. He described the situation in stark terms, suggesting that the capture of the Nigerian state and the plunder of its resources undermine state stability and deepen poverty and state failure.
Obi used the occasion to renew his call for President Tinubu to leave office, stating that the latest allegations, combined with the administration’s handling of governance and insecurity, provided sufficient grounds for the President’s resignation, and urged Nigerians to hold the administration accountable within the law.
Read also:
- IMF raises concern over rising budget deficits in Nigeria, other African countries
- Federal Government hails IMF endorsement of economic reforms, pledges to sustain growth momentum
- Taxes On Telecom Services: FG Speaks On Rumoured New Levies As IMF Report Sparks Public Panic
Civil Society Adds Its Voice
Beyond the political class, civil society groups have also weighed in. The Alliance for Economic Research and Ethics (AERE), through its Chairman, Dele Kelvin Oye, described the N8.8 trillion off-budget spending as a governance crisis rather than a simple accounting discrepancy, warning that continued fiscal opacity could threaten Nigeria’s economic future. The group urged the government to move beyond technical compliance with budgeting rules toward full fiscal accountability, and also called on the IMF to make greater transparency a condition for the technical assistance it extends to Nigeria. AERE additionally criticised a proposed $5 billion financing arrangement with the United Arab Emirates, describing it as a short-term liquidity fix that does not resolve the country’s underlying fiscal transparency problems.
The Bigger Picture
At the heart of the dispute is a technical but consequential disagreement over how Nigeria’s fiscal position should be measured and reported. The IMF’s position, as explained by Ebeke, is that certain large capital projects and fiscal obligations were executed outside the standard budget framework, which means Nigeria’s official deficit and borrowing figures understate the true scale of government financing. The Nigerian government, on the other hand, insists that all such spending is backed by law — through appropriations, supplementary budgets, statutory transfers, and capital rollover provisions — and that the real issue is one of reporting presentation rather than any breach of legislative authority.
Whichever interpretation prevails, the episode has reignited a familiar debate in Nigerian public finance: the need for clearer, more comprehensive budget documentation that captures all government spending in real time, rather than leaving analysts, lawmakers, and citizens to reconcile figures after the fact. With the 2027 general election cycle already shaping political rhetoric, the N8.8 trillion question looks set to remain a flashpoint between the Tinubu administration and its opposition for some time to come.
