US FLAGS NIGERIA’S FISCAL TRANSPARENCY GAPS AS PRESIDENCY PUSHES BACK, URGES CONTEXT
National Patriots Says Accountability Must Improve but Warns International Institutions Against Turning Benchmarks Into Sovereign Economic Prescriptions
Nigeria must be accountable for every naira of public money — but accountability to Nigerians must not be confused with surrendering Nigeria’s sovereign right to determine how its economy is financed, managed and developed.
That distinction has moved to the centre of debate following the United States’ latest fiscal transparency assessment, which placed Nigeria among governments that failed to meet Washington’s minimum requirements.
The Presidency has pushed back against any sweeping interpretation of the findings.
Sunday Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Media, said the Federal Government takes fiscal transparency and accountability seriously but argued that the US assessment measures Nigeria against a specific set of Department of State requirements rather than providing a comprehensive verdict on the country’s entire public financial management system.
That distinction matters.
The US fiscal-transparency methodology examines such issues as the public availability, completeness and reliability of budget information and transparency surrounding government contracts and licences. The State Department itself describes fiscal transparency as important to accountability, market confidence and economic sustainability.
Nigeria nevertheless has legitimate questions to answer.
The latest assessment reportedly faults weaknesses surrounding budget disclosure, expenditure and revenue reporting, audit independence and procurement transparency.
These concerns cannot responsibly be waved aside merely because they originate abroad.
But neither should Nigeria be portrayed as operating in a fiscal darkness.
The Federal Government’s Open Treasury Portal publishes categories including daily treasury statements, daily payment reports, monthly fiscal accounts, monthly and quarterly budget-performance reports, quarterly MDA financial statements and annual financial statements. Its transparency framework requires publication of Federal Government payments of at least ₦10 million, while MDAs are required to publish payments above ₦5 million.
The portal continues to carry 2026 daily Federal Government payment reports, demonstrating that an institutional disclosure mechanism is functioning.
Public procurement is also undergoing digitisation. The Bureau of Public Procurement’s Procurement Compliance Monitoring Service, P-COMS, is designed to enable electronic procurement planning, tender publication, vendor verification, compliance reviews and real-time regulatory oversight of MDAs.
Nigeria therefore has a transparency infrastructure. The more difficult question is whether that infrastructure is sufficiently comprehensive, timely, independently audited and consistently obeyed.
That is where the criticism deserves attention.
The International Monetary Fund’s 2026 Article IV assessment provides perhaps the more consequential warning. It estimated Nigeria’s consolidated government deficit at 4.4 per cent of GDP in 2025, compared with 2.4 per cent in 2024, and identified an estimated statistical discrepancy equivalent to 2.7 per cent of GDP, which it said could reflect expenditure not captured by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.
Yet there is another side to that finding.
Nigeria’s authorities told the IMF that the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 budgets had brought expenditure into the formal budget framework and argued that the estimated discrepancy should fall when revised fiscal outturns incorporate that spending. The IMF report records that explanation.
This is precisely why international assessments should be interrogated rather than either blindly accepted or defensively rejected.
Nigeria is a federation of more than 200 million people, with 36 states, the FCT, 774 local government areas, enormous infrastructure deficits and development pressures radically different from those confronting mature Western economies.
International standards are useful benchmarks; they are not commandments carved in stone.
The same caution applies to the IMF’s concern over Nigeria’s financing arrangement with First Abu Dhabi Bank.
The IMF warned that Total Return Swap structures can be complex and opaque and can expose borrowers to risks, including potential margin calls. But Nigeria proceeded with the facility after legislative approval, with the government arguing that the arrangement would refinance expensive debt, support infrastructure and permit drawdowns in tranches rather than forcing the country to pay interest immediately on the entire facility.
That is a legitimate policy choice — provided the liabilities, collateral arrangements and material risks are properly disclosed and subjected to Nigerian law and oversight.
Borrowing from international institutions does not diminish Nigeria’s sovereignty. Nor should accepting technical assistance translate into surrendering economic policymaking to Washington or any multilateral institution.
NATIONAL PATRIOTS REACTS
The National Patriots Movement of Nigeria (NP) said Nigeria should take credible international criticism seriously while resisting any attempt to turn external assessments into prescriptions that disregard the country’s developmental realities.
“Transparency is not a concession Nigeria makes to the United States, the IMF or any lender; it is an obligation the Nigerian Government owes the Nigerian people. But Nigeria’s sovereign economic choices must ultimately be determined by Nigeria’s Constitution, institutions, elected government and national interest — not by the preferences of external institutions.”
The National Patriots added that international partners must recognise the enormous developmental financing requirements of emerging economies and avoid applying policy prescriptions without sufficient appreciation of domestic circumstances.
The way forward, therefore, is neither confrontation nor capitulation.
Nigeria should publish more, audit faster, close off-budget gaps, strengthen the independence and effectiveness of public audit institutions and make major borrowing arrangements sufficiently transparent for Nigerians themselves to scrutinise.
But Abuja must also retain the courage to reject prescriptions that may work in Washington, London or other mature economies but fail to reflect Nigerian realities.
Fiscal transparency strengthens sovereignty; it does not extinguish it. Nigeria should open its books because Nigerians deserve accountability — not because any foreign capital demands obedience.
That is the balance a sovereign democracy must defend.
The National Patriots.
Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser MFR.
Former Special Adviser to Former President Goodluck Jonathan.
