Centre for Social Justice, Nigeria

08/04/2026

https://csj-ng.org/critical-issues-in-nigerias-public-finance-management/

CRITICAL ISSUES IN NIGERIA’S PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT being a policy brief by Centre for Social Justice, Action Aid Nigeria, Nigeria Labour Congress, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, BudgIT, Impact Bridge Africa Advisory.

Nigeria stands at a critical fiscal crossroad. The choice is between a rules-based fiscal system anchored on the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, or a continued descent into discretionary and opaque fiscal governance. We urge all arms of government to act decisively to restore integrity, discipline, and public trust in Nigeria’s public finance management system.

CRITICAL ISSUES IN NIGERIA’S PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT being a policy brief by Centre for Social Justice, Action Aid Nigeria, Nigeria Labour Congress, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, BudgIT, Impact Bridge Africa Advisory

30/03/2026

Ghana has provided leadership for the Black Race in moving an accepted motion at the United Nations to recognise slavery as the gravest crime against humanity and moved for reparations.

Meanwhile, Nigeria being one fifth of the Black Race disappeared in this sacred duty to the Black Race and its leadership is more concerned about removing fraud, drug smuggling and imbeclity as grounds for qualification to its presidency.

I never imagined that in my lifetime, I would experience such low lives in high places, legislating for me and removing ethics and morality in government.

Those currently leading Nigeria claim to be Abiola's disciples. But Abiola had advocated reparations for Africa.

May God rebuke the devil.

24/03/2026

24/03/2026

Who remembers that the 2026 federal budget has not been passed by the National Assembly almost March ending. Politics is overtaking governance and there is still a song that it is well.

10/03/2026

On this episode of Moneyline with Nancy, host Nancy Nnaji sits down with Eze Onyekpere, Lead Director of the Centre for Social Justice, to break down the 2026 Appropriation Bill and how it could impact you directly.

Join the conversation.

Nigeria’s 2026 budget is more than numbers on paper; it’s a roadmap that will shape businesses, investments, inflation, jobs, and your personal finances.On t...

05/03/2026

Legality of Executive Order on Direct Remittance of Oil and Gas Revenues to Federation Account
Eze Onyekpere Esq.
Recent developments in the polity and economy have raised constitutional and jurisprudential questions about the nature, dynamics and extent of orders the leader of the executive arm of government (president or governor) can give in the ex*****on of the mandate under S.5 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. This is against the background of the recent executive order by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Direct Remittance of Oil and Gas Revenues to Federation Account. This discourse reviews the executive order and seeks to clarify the legality, constitutionality or otherwise of the executive order.
The starting point is a review of the constitutional provision that vests executive power. The executive powers of the Federation are vested in the President and may and subject to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Ministers of the Government of the Federation or officers in the public service of the Federation. It extends to the ex*****on and maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws. Similar powers are granted to governors in respect of the states.
This power is clearly distinct from the power vested by S.4 on the legislature being the National Assembly which is the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof in accordance with the constitutional schedules of legislative influence. The legislature also has oversight and representative powers. Similar powers are granted to State Houses of Assembly in respect of the states. The judiciary is assigned the interpretative role.
So, what exactly is an executive order? Various dictionaries and scholars have offered definitions. They include official instructions given by the president or governor about the way the federal, national or state governments should operate in any field of endeavor. They are given in furtherance of the ex*****on of the constitutional power of the executive in a specific area for the operationalization or administration of extant laws. They are sometimes like regulations to fill gaps in extant laws for their nuanced implementation. Executive orders have the force of law and they must derive their authority from a principal legislation.

However, executive orders are not legislation and do not go through debates and approval process in the National or State Assemblies before going for assent by the president or governor. They are rather directives on how ministries, departments and agencies should implement and enforce specific laws. It is imperative to acknowledge that the executive have some discretion in the implementation of laws; this is the territory and arena for executive orders, to the extent that they do not violate extant laws. In accordance with the principle of separation of powers, supremacy of the constitution and the entire letters and spirit of the constitution vesting different arms of government with distinct powers, an executive order cannot amend, override or repeal an extant federal or state legislation duly approved by the legislature and assented to by the president or governor.

Within the foregoing context, this discourse examines the content of the Direct Remittance of Oil and Gas Revenues to Federation Account. It is stated that under the current PIA framework, NNPC Limited retains 30 per cent of the Federation’s oil revenues as a management fee on Profit Oil and Profit Gas derived from Production Sharing Contracts, Profit Sharing Contracts, and Risk Service Contracts. In addition, the company retains 20 per cent of its profits to cover working capital and future investments. Given the existing 20% retention, the additional 30% management fee is considered unjustified by the Federal Government, as the retained earnings are already sufficient to support the functions NNPCL performs under these contracts. NNPC Limited also retains another 30% of its profit oil and profit gas under the production sharing, profit sharing, and risk service contracts, as the Frontier Exploration Fund under sections 9(4) and (5) of the PIA. A fund of this size, being devoted to speculative exploration, risks accumulating large idle cash balances, which would encourage inefficient exploration spending, at a time when government resources are urgently needed for core national priorities, including security, education, healthcare, and energy transition investments is considered not in the national interest.

The fact that these funds which the executive order sought to redirect to the Federation Account are provided in an existing law, which has not been repealed or amended is not in doubt. But the President makes a case for re-directing public resources to core national priorities. He sought to anchor the executive order on S.44(3) of the Constitution, which vests ownership, control, and derivative rights in all minerals, mineral oils, and natural gas in, under, and upon any land in Nigeria, including its territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone, in the Government of the Federation. This discourse is not taking a position on the propriety or otherwise of the need for redirecting resources to Federation Account.

What the president has done is to present a case for re-direction of national resources in contradistinction to the provision of extant law. This matter should automatically invoke the determination of rights, duties, entitlements and the interpretative powers of the judiciary in S.6 of the Constitution. The President ought to have brought a suit before the Supreme Court against the National Assembly challenging those provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act which he sought to override in the executive order thereby giving the courts the opportunity to make a pronouncement. The second option open to him would have been to introduce a bill to the National Assembly to amend the relevant sections of the PIA. Considering the configuration of the present NASS, he may even get the bill passed within one week and he assents to it the same day after passage by the House and the Senate.

Therefore, against the background of the foregoing, the executive order on Direct Remittance of Oil and Gas Revenues to Federation Account is unconstitutional, null and void and ultra vires the powers of the President. The President cannot override the PIA through an executive order. The executive order needs to be challenged in court.

02/03/2026

2025 Capital Budget Implementation Crisis

Eze Onyekpere

THE SUN, Newspaper, March 2 2026

The capital budget is that portion of the budget that touches the lives and existential realities of the majority of the population. It is from the capital votes that roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, airports, water and sanitation, agricultural facilities and inputs, etc., are built, rehabilitated and improved. While recurrent votes focus on running the administration, capital votes tend to improve human and infrastructural capital and lay the foundation for development, economic growth and improvements of the human condition. Against the background of the foregoing, this discourse reviews federal capital budget implementation since the Tinubu presidency, especially in the light of the further extension of the implementation of the 2025 capital votes to November 2026.

A typical Appropriation Act at the federal level starts in section 1 with the issue and appropriation of (a certain sum of money) from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation for the year in question. It proceeds to order the release of the money for the purposes stated therein and within the year in issue and generally states that no part of the amount aforesaid shall be released from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation after the end of the year mentioned in subsection (1) of this section. These provisions are usually in tandem with the Financial Year Act and the interpretative S.318 of the Constitution in defining the financial year as the period between January 1 to December 31 in any given year. No part of the amount appropriated is to be released from the Consolidated Revenue after the end of the financial year. Financial year is constitutionally defined to mean any period of twelve months beginning on the first day of January in any year or such other date as the National Assembly may prescribe.

At the 2026 federal budget defence sessions, minister after minister told the National Assembly that they either got zero releases or a paltry less than 1% of their appropriated capital votes for the 2025 financial year. The ministry of health got N36m out of a vote of N218bn; ministry of transport – only N2.5bn out of N265.7bn vote.

The 2023 federal capital votes were carried over into 2024 and 2024 capital votes carried over to 2025. Now, 2025 capital votes have been carried over into 2026. At some point, about three capital votes were being implemented at the same time leading to fiscal confusion, accountability and transparency challenges. The President had assured Nigerians during the presentation of the 2026 federal budget before the National Assembly that 2025 capital votes carried over into 2026 will be fully implemented by the end of the first quarter in March 2026. He even stated that policy innovations would be introduced to ensure that this is the last time capital votes would be carried over into the new year. As such, we would virtually start 2026 budget implementation on a clean slate.

Prior to this development, the Budget Office of the Federation in the 2026 Budget Call Circular had directed ministries, departments and agencies of government to upload 70% of their 2025 FGN capital budget to continue in financial year 2026. All such rollover and uploads must be in line with the immediate needs of the country as well as government’s development priorities. From our review of the 2026 capital votes pending before NASS, all MDAs complied with this directive and there was a carryover of most 2025 projects. The implication of the foregoing is that what is carried over for implementation before end of March 2026 is less than 30% of 2025 capital votes.

Media reports indicate that the Accountant-General of the Federation, Dr. Shamseldeen Babatunde Ogunjimi, during a stakeholders’ meeting in Abuja on Thursday February 19th announced that the 30% component of the 2025 budget is now scheduled to run until November 30, 2026 and implementation will start by the first week of March 2026. This revelation raises a lot of issues and challenges. The first issue is an enquiry on what necessitated this further extension of a mere 30% of the 2025 budget. Why the extension? Does the federal government have adequate financial resources to implement the carryover? If there is no money to pay for the projects, what happened to all the resources that accrued through taxes and oil revenue in 2025? What happened to the savings from fuel subsidy removal? Did President Bola Ahmed Tinubu lie to Nigerians that we had exceeded the full year non-oil revenue target for 2025 by September of that year? Is poor capital budget implementation a capacity problem rather than a revenue challenge?

An answer to some of these posers may be found in this statement from the Director of Funds, Steve Ehikhamenor, at the same occasion to wit: “This extension aims to rectify the implementation delays caused by previous revenue shortfalls, moving away from the overlapping budget cycles of recent years to a more organized fiscal framework.” The Accountant-General had earlier told the National Assembly that disbursements can only be done if the funds are available “because I must have the funds before I can disburse them”. Further, media statements credited to Special Adviser on Media and Public Communication to President Bola Tinubu, Sunday Dare states that the Federal Government has commenced payments for outstanding 2024 capital projects. FG will fully implement the capital components of both the 2024 and 2025 budgets by March 31, 2026 implying that there are still carryovers from 2024 federal budget. This March 31 deadline has been overtaken by statements from the appropriate authorities.

The foregoing seems to suggest that there is no money for the disbursing authorities to disburse to MDAs. However, it fails to provide answers to what happened to accrued revenue. In December 2025, when the administration sought to brief Nigerians on revenue accruals, there was a wide gulf between the President’s position and that of the Minister of Finance leading to a confusion in the polity.

If we have a deadline of November 2026 for the full implementation of the 2025 capital budget, when will the implementation of the 2026 votes start? We are almost at the end of February and there is no approved budget for the year emanating from late submission of the proposals by the President.

In the final analysis, the President, as an elected leader, owes Nigerians an account and explanations about what happened to accrued revenue. If capital votes are not implemented, as in the extant case, the President is simply using his mandate and tax payers sweat to pay himself and the bureaucracy while doing nothing for the security and welfare of the people. Mr. President, we need an account and detailed explanations.

18/02/2026

FRIVOLOUS, INAPPROPRIATE,UNCLEAR AND WASTEFUL EXPENDITURE PRPODALS IN 2026 FEDERAL BUDGET ESTIMATES PENDING BEFORE NASS. https://csj-ng.org/publication/2026-federal-budget-frivolous-expeniture-pullout/

Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and its partners in the Citizens Wealth Platform are continuing the yearly pullout of frivolous,
inappropriate, unclear and wasteful expenditure in the Federal Appropriation Bill 2026. It is hoped that the pull-out will contribute to the enhanced scrutiny and review of the budget by stakeholders including the approval process in the National Assembly. A total savings of N3,134,053,374,245 (three trillion, one hundred and thirty-four billion, fifty-three million, three hundred and seventy-four thousand, two hundred and forty-five naira) is available for reprogramming as indicated in this pullout.

The pullout highlights budgetary provisions which have no details, locations and deliverables. It also shows duplicated projects
and some that have been in the budget for so many years. After providing for specific infrastructure projects across the federation
or in a state, a general provision for infrastructure Nigeria/State/Geopolitical Zone wide have been severally identified in the
budget. There are line items which do not clearly indicate what the treasury will be paying for – empty jargons that make no
meaning. For instance, the National Rural Electrification Agency has votes for “Provision of Productive Use Equipment for Catalytic in North Central, North East, North West, South South, South East and South West”. We have asked NASS to thoroughly scrutinise these line items on behalf of the Nigerian people before approval.

The vote of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security is suffused with projects that have no locations, class of beneficiaries
and sometimes no clear deliverables. This is the case in over 90% of the projects. This has been the norm in agriculture budgeting
over the years. The most troubling part of this proposal is that many of the unclear proposals are to be funded from debt. Borrowing and demonstrating a clear intent to mismanage the resources is economic sabotage of the highest order and should be discontinued. The vote needs to be totally repackaged and these nebulous expenditure proposals made clear and to be of benefit to Nigerians.

The meagre resources allocated to the Works Sector have been so thinly spread across hundreds of projects to the extent that
money will be spent without any concrete improvements in the works sector. The proposals present very little sums of money for major road projects, for instance N70m that cannot pay for the construction of a kilometre of road. Out of a capital vote of
N3.244trillion, it allocates N1.3trillion by aggregation on a geopolitical basis instead of a properly costed road by road basis. This
is a slush fund that be easily abused. The votes should be reprogrammed to specific roads while maintain geopolitical equity.
The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway and Badagry to Sokoto Highway have paltry provisions of N70m each. This cannot be the
actual public investment going into the roads in 2026. If the money for the continued construction is borrowed or if the project is
a public private partnership, the cost should be reflected in the budget. The monies to be spent are public resources to be paid
back or somehow absorbed by tax payers.

The proposed votes to the Auditor-General for the Federation (N15.8bn) and Code of Conduct Bureau are very paltry. The vote
of N15.7bn to the Code of Conduct Bureau cannot scratch the surface of the challenges associated with the implementation of
its constitutional mandate. For instance, voting about N200m for investigation and monitoring of over 5million asset declarants is
grossly insufficient. There is nothing in the proposal for the operationalisation of the online asset declaration system. If the FGN
is serious about the fight against corruption, it must give the Auditor General and the Bureau not less than N50bn each in 2026
and progressively improve this over the years.

The trillions piled up in Service Wide Votes as special interventions funds for poverty reduction and SDGs raises a cause for
concern. This has been a yearly ritual. But there is no evidence of where and how the monies have been spent. No documentation
of beneficiaries, projects, etc. These votes should be reprogrammed to projects that citizens can follow-up on through monitoring.
Statutory transfers in the sum of N4.435trillion is stated as bulk figures without disaggregation. This is wrong as no MDA or arm of government is entitled to spend public funds in a way and manner unknown to the citizen, the tax payer and ultimate sovereigns
on whose behalf the MDA or arms of government purport to act or exercise authority. These votes should be disaggregated and the details put in the public domain before they are approved by NASS. For the avoidance of doubt, the agencies and funds are National Judicial Council, National Assembly, Independent National Electoral Commission, Basic Health Care Provision Fund, Universal Basic Education Fund, North East Development Commission, South East Development Commission, North West
Development Commission, South West Development Commission, South South Development Commission, North Central
Development Commission, National Human Rights Commission, Public Complaints Commission and National Agency for
Science and Engineering Infrastructure.

Many MDAs are demanding for specific brands of vehicles instead of providing for functional specification of vehicles. This
stultifies competition and value for money in public procurement. And the vehicles frequently demanded are foreign brands that
should compete with made in Nigerian brands in accordance with the Executive Order on Local Content in Budgeting and the
National Automobile Policy.

The budget provides for the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nigeria lacks the human and technical capacity and the discipline to develop, run and manage a nuclear power plant. This is coming at a time more advanced
countries are decommissioning their nuclear power plants.

The foregoing are just samples of the frivolous, inappropriate, unclear and wasteful expenditure which the NASS needs to review
and possibly re-work or re-allocate before approval.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE LINE ITEMS OF FRIVOLOUS, INAPPROPRIATE, UNCLEAR AND WASTEFUL ESTIMATES IN THE 2026 FEDERALAPPROPRIATION BILL ESTIMATES

23/01/2026

https://csj-ng.org/publication/centre-for-social-justice-newsletter-december-2025/

CSJ Newsletter, December 2025

CSJ focused on four key issues vis, Analysis of Agriculture Sector Budget Proposals and Engagement of other Agricultural projects

09/01/2026

Nigerian Civil Society Economy Action



January 7, 2026

CIVIL SOCIETY RESPONSE ON THE REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF THE 2024 AND 2025 APPROPRIATION ACTS AND BUDGET TRANSPARENCY
The undersigned Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) acknowledge and welcome the timely response of the Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) to our Media Statement of Tuesday, 6 January 2026. We recognise this engagement as a positive step towards constructive public dialogue on fiscal governance, constitutionalism, and budget transparency.
Our intervention is guided by a shared commitment to strengthening Nigeria’s public finance system, deepening constitutional accountability, and expanding citizen participation in budgetary processes. In that spirit, we respectfully offer the following clarifications and observations in response to the BOF’s statement, with a view to advancing mutual understanding and institutional improvement.
1. Constitutional Framework for Public Expenditure
We agree that Sections 80–84 of the Constitution establish a sequenced and rule-based framework for public expenditure management, centred on prior legislative authorisation. Our concern remains that this constitutional sequence must be strictly observed in both form and substance.
Where expenditures exceed the limits approved in an Appropriation Act before further legislative approval is obtained, such actions raise serious constitutional questions. While subsequent legislative measures may seek to regularise fiscal outcomes, they do not negate the importance of prior authorisation as a cornerstone of constitutional governance. We believe this issue deserves further clarification through transparent inter-institutional engagement and, where necessary, judicial interpretation.
2. Repeal and Re-enactment of Appropriation Acts
We acknowledge that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit repeal and re-enactment of laws, including Appropriation Acts. However, we respectfully submit that the unique nature of budget laws—their defined fiscal lifespan, annual revenue-expenditure balancing, and macroeconomic implications—requires heightened caution.
The repeal and re-enactment of an Appropriation Act well beyond its original fiscal year, particularly where such action appears linked to expenditure already incurred, raises legitimate public interest concerns. Our position is that prior legislative authority is absent, and legislative endorsement after expenditure must align with the spirit of fiscal discipline, predictability, and constitutional restraint. This is an area where clearer standards and precedents would benefit governance.
3. Budget Lifespan and Legislative Extensions
We recognise that the National Assembly has constitutional powers to legislate on fiscal matters, including the definition of the financial year. However, frequent or ad-hoc extensions of budget lifespans—especially through resolutions rather than formal amendment Acts—risk introducing uncertainty into fiscal management.
For public confidence and legal clarity, amendments to Appropriation Acts should, in our view, follow clear legislative processes, consistent with how laws are ordinarily amended. This approach would strengthen institutional credibility and ensure alignment with constitutional and statutory norms.
4. Expenditure Without Prior Appropriation
We note BOF’s explanation regarding the complexity of public finance administration. Nonetheless, the constitutional principle remains clear: public expenditure should be proposed, scrutinised, and approved before it is incurred, except where expressly permitted by law.
The request for post-expenditure legislative approval suggests that further dialogue is required on the boundaries between implementation realities and constitutional requirements. We believe this conversation is essential to reinforcing—not weakening—Nigeria’s fiscal accountability framework.
5. Transparency and Access to Budget Documents
We welcome BOF’s reaffirmation of its obligations under the Fiscal Responsibility Act and its commitment to public access to fiscal documents. Transparency is not merely a procedural requirement but a constitutional value that underpins public trust.
Given current technological capacities, timely publication of budget proposals, repeal and re-enactment bills, and enacted Appropriation Acts should be a routine administrative practice. We encourage BOF to continue strengthening internal systems to ensure that authenticated documents are made publicly available without delay, in line with the Constitution and the Freedom of Information Act.
6. Popular Participation and Civic Engagement
We agree that Nigeria operates a representative democracy. At the same time, Section 14(2)(a) of the Constitution affirms that sovereignty belongs to the people. Representation is therefore complemented—not replaced—by meaningful citizen participation.
We encourage BOF, the National Assembly, and other fiscal institutions to deepen structured public engagement, including open budget consultations, access to data, and platforms for civic input. These measures enhance policy legitimacy and align with Nigeria’s commitments to open government and co-creation.
Conclusion
We reiterate our appreciation of the BOF’s willingness to engage publicly on these critical issues. Our intervention is driven not by adversarial intent, but by a shared responsibility to uphold the Constitution, strengthen fiscal governance, and protect the public interest.
We respectfully call on the Budget Office of the Federation, the National Assembly, and the Executive to continue this dialogue with civil society and citizens, with a view to clarifying legal standards, improving transparency, and reinforcing constitutional compliance in Nigeria’s budgetary process.
Constructive engagement, openness, and fidelity to due process will best serve the Nigerian people and strengthen confidence in public institutions.
Signed:
Centre for Social Justice (CSJ)
Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ)

Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC)

PLSI

BudgIT

PRIMORG

09/01/2026

Nigerian Civil Society Economy Action

January 6, 2026

Media Statement

STOP THIS FISCAL RASCALITY
We, the undersigned civil society organisations, express grave concern over the recent constitutional breaches in the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts carried out by a collaboration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the National Assembly (“NASS”). We are also concerned about the opacity, lack of transparency and popular participation in the federal budgeting process, to the extent that eighteen days after the presentation of the federal executive budget, the Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) and the NASS have failed, refused and neglected to upload same to their websites.

Furthermore, the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts (Repeal and Re-enactment) bills which have been approved by NASS are not available to Nigerians on any electronic portal and there was no opportunity for popular participation in the consideration and re-enactment of these Acts.

These breaches raise fundamental questions about the management of public revenues and expenditure and the responsiveness of the executive and legislature to the fiscal stipulations of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended (“Constitution”) and the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

We recall that S.81 of the Constitution explicitly provides for the submission of expenditure proposals by the President to NASS and prior approval of the NASS before public expenditure is incurred. This is further buttressed by S.80 (2), (3) and (4) of the Constitution. These provisions inform the yearly submission of executive budget proposals to NASS for approval and their in-year amendment if the need arises.

Essentially, expenditure must be based on prior legislative approval and not legislative endorsement of already incurred expenditure. The 2024 Appropriation Act should have expired on December 31 2024 but NASS purported to extend the life span to June 2025 and later December 2025. Even in its extended lifespan, the executive failed to implement the 2024 budget in accordance with its tenor and now that the extended life has ended, the President sought to repeal and re-enact the Act increasing the total budget size from ₦35.05 trillion to ₦43.56 trillion.

This is a legal and constitutional impossibility and can only be possible in a country where the rule of law is continuously desecrated. It is an affront to the fiscal provisions of the Constitution for the President to spend extra N8trillion in public funds without prior legislative approval and Nigeria was not operating under any declared fiscal emergency. The President only sought endorsement after expenditure and the supine rubber stamp NASS gave its approval.

On the reduction in the size of the 2025 federal budget, a budget is reviewed mid-year in June and the outcome of the review deployed in the amendment of the budget. A budget is not arbitrarily reviewed in December when its life should end. We recall that NASS stated that the decision to repeal and re-enact the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts was taken to align Nigeria’s budgeting process with global best practices, enhance transparency, and resolve implementation challenges associated with running multiple budgets. This position of NASS cannot be supported by Nigerian fiscal laws and policies or any international best practice. Rather it is a mismanagement and gross abuse of due process and our fiscal laws.

S.48 (1) of the Fiscal Responsibility Act states that the Federal Government shall ensure that its fiscal and financial affairs are conducted in a transparent manner and accordingly ensure full and timely disclosure and wide publication of all transactions and decisions involving public revenues and expenditures and their implications for its finances. The refusal to make public the 2026 Appropriation Bill or the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bills (now Acts of NASS) are in gross violation of this provision. Citizens cannot engage budget bills that they have not seen or have access to. In the past, the BOF produced citizens budgets which were simplified versions of the larger budget while the current BOF simply refuses to make available the basic budget document.

Against the background of the foregoing, we demand the following:
▪ NASS should ensure that there is no expenditure without appropriation as unbudgeted expenditure not incurred in accordance with constitutional stipulations is an impeachable offence.

▪ An unconditional guarantee by the President to abide by constitutional stipulations of spending only what has been appropriated.

▪ The immediate publication of the 2026 federal budget estimates on the website of the BOF and NASS.

▪ The immediate publication of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bills and the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Acts on the website of the BOF and NASS.


▪ A commitment to fiscal transparency in accordance with S.48 of the FRA and a guarantee of popular participation in the consideration and approval of all fiscal laws and policies.

Signed:

Centre for Social Justice (CSJ)
Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ)
Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC)
PRIMEORG
PLSI
BudgIT