₦8.8 TRILLION IN THE DARK: IMF DISCLOSURE RAISES FRESH QUESTIONS OVER NIGERIA’S FISCAL TRANSPARENCY
The controversy over unreported public expenditure, off-budget projects and accountability has placed the Tinubu administration under renewed scrutiny
By Aare Amerijoye DOT.B
Director General, The Narrative Force
Nigeria's public finances have entered another difficult phase of scrutiny following an International Monetary Fund disclosure that public expenditure equivalent to about two per cent of the country's Gross Domestic Product was not captured in recent official budget documents.
The figure, based on Nigeria's economy of approximately ₦441.5 trillion, translates to roughly ₦8.8 trillion.
The disclosure was made on July 1, 2026, by Christian Ebeke, the IMF Resident Representative in Nigeria, during an engagement with business executives in Lagos.
According to Ebeke, the discrepancy means that Nigeria's reported fiscal deficit could appear smaller than the government's actual financing requirements because some capital expenditure was not reflected in budget documents and implementation reports. He said part of the discrepancy was linked to major government projects executed outside the formal budget framework.
The IMF's statement immediately raised questions about fiscal transparency, procurement and public-sector accountability.
But an important distinction must be made.
The IMF did not say that ₦8.8 trillion had been stolen. Nor did it establish that the money was secretly diverted for political purposes.
The Federal Government has rejected that interpretation.
Finance and economic authorities said the country does not operate a “shadow budget” and challenged critics to provide evidence that public funds had been illegally spent outside Nigeria's constitutional and statutory financial framework.
That disagreement makes the issue more—not less—important.
The central question is no longer simply whether the money existed.
It is: Where was the expenditure recorded, under what authority was it incurred, which projects did it finance, who authorised it, and why was it not fully reflected in the relevant budget and implementation reports?
Those are questions that deserve documentary answers.
---
THE ACCOUNTING GAP THAT NIGERIANS CANNOT IGNORE
The significance of the IMF disclosure lies in what it says about the credibility of Nigeria's fiscal accounts.
If major government expenditure is executed or financed in a manner that is not adequately reflected in the official budget and implementation reports, citizens, lawmakers, investors and even economic policymakers are left with an incomplete picture of the government's financial position.
That matters because the budget is not merely an accounting document.
It is the principal instrument through which citizens, through the National Assembly, exercise oversight over public expenditure.
The IMF itself said that better recording of the expenditure would eliminate the statistical discrepancy between reported fiscal deficits and actual financing requirements. It also stressed the importance of fiscal transparency and accountability.
The appropriate response, therefore, should not be political theatrics.
It should be documentation.
Project by project.
Contract by contract.
Naira by naira.
---
THE GOVERNMENT'S DEFENCE ALSO DESERVES TO BE HEARD
The Federal Government has strongly pushed back against interpretations that the IMF statement amounts to evidence of illegal spending.
Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele said the IMF's description was inaccurate and misleading if interpreted as meaning that the government had maintained an unlawful “shadow budget.”
That position cannot simply be dismissed.
The IMF's own description referred to expenditure that was not reported or recorded in the relevant fiscal accounts, particularly capital expenditure associated with major projects.
That is materially different from establishing that the expenditure was stolen.
Consequently, the ₦8.8 trillion figure should not be converted into a claim of corruption without evidence establishing what happened to specific funds.
But neither should the accounting discrepancy be dismissed as inconsequential.
A government that wants public confidence should be able to show precisely how the discrepancy arose and how it is being corrected.
---
THE ₦1.3 TRILLION? NO — THE ₦1.3 BILLION QUESTION
A separate controversy has further intensified questions about the integrity of Nigeria's budgetary process.
The 2026 Appropriation Act contained a provision of approximately ₦1.3 billion associated with the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council.
The controversy was striking because the Presidency had previously stated that the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council did not exist under the Tinubu administration.
The Presidency subsequently directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate the matter.
The Budget Office later explained that the allocation appeared in the budget because official government documents had been relied upon during the budget process. It also said the required conditions for financial clearance had not been completed and that the ₦1.3 billion was never actually released or spent.
That explanation raises another question:
How did an entity the Presidency says was never legally established find its way into the national budget in the first place?
That question deserves an answer independent of partisan politics.
---
THE ALMAJIRI COMMISSION AND THE QUESTION OF BUDGETARY PRIORITIES
Another controversy concerns allocations associated with the National Commission for Almajiri and Out-of-School Children Education.
Reports based on the 2026 Appropriation Act identified substantial road-related allocations under the commission, including projects in Ogun State—raising questions about whether some expenditure was consistent with the agency's statutory mandate.
Again, the issue should not be reduced to political slogans.
The relevant questions are straightforward:
Why were road projects placed under an institution established principally to address education and out-of-school children?
What approvals authorised the expenditure?
Were the projects subsequently transferred to the appropriate infrastructure agencies?
And what measurable educational outcomes were secured from the commission's overall allocation?
These are questions Parliament and the relevant oversight institutions can answer through documents and hearings.
---
THE LAGOS-CALABAR HIGHWAY CONTROVERSY
The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway provides another example of the transparency debate surrounding major federal projects.
The Federal Government awarded the project to Hitech Construction Company under an EPC+F arrangement, triggering criticism over procurement and the relationship between the company's owners and President Tinubu.
Critics have alleged that the procurement process lacked sufficient competitive bidding, while the Federal Government has maintained that the project was awarded through a procurement process permitted by law.
Works Minister David Umahi has specifically defended the use of restrictive procurement for the initial section, arguing that Hitech possessed specialised equipment and experience required for the project. He has also said subsequent sections went through selective competitive bidding.
A court challenge and continuing public debate have kept the project under scrutiny.
The proper journalistic question is therefore not whether criticism exists.
It is whether the procurement documents, approvals, contract terms, variations, financing arrangements and beneficial ownership relationships can withstand independent public scrutiny.
---
WHAT DOES ₦8.8 TRILLION REALLY MEAN?
This is where political rhetoric must give way to evidence.
₦8.8 trillion is an enormous number.
But it would be misleading to describe the entire figure as “missing money” unless an investigation establishes that the money cannot be accounted for.
The IMF's disclosure points to a reporting and fiscal-accounting discrepancy involving expenditure that should have been captured more fully in Nigeria's fiscal accounts.
That distinction is fundamental.
There are at least three different possibilities:
1. Legitimate expenditure that was inadequately recorded;
2. Expenditure executed outside normal budgetary procedures but ultimately traceable to identifiable projects;
3. Expenditure involving irregularities, procurement violations, diversion or corruption.
Only a proper audit and investigation can determine which category applies to each disputed transaction.
That is precisely why the matter should not be allowed to disappear beneath partisan arguments.
---
THE ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION
The controversy presents an opportunity for Nigeria's oversight institutions to do something much more useful than exchanging accusations.
The National Assembly should demand detailed explanations of the expenditure identified by the IMF.
The Auditor-General should establish whether the relevant expenditure has subsequently been captured in Nigeria's fiscal accounts.
The Budget Office and Accountant-General should publish reconciliations showing how the discrepancy arose and how it is being corrected.
Where procurement concerns exist, the Bureau of Public Procurement and appropriate anti-corruption agencies should examine the relevant contracts.
And where allegations of wrongdoing are established by evidence, those responsible should face the law.
That is how a republic protects public money.
Not through propaganda.
Not through political loyalty.
Not through the destruction of institutions.
But through records.
---
THE REAL TEST OF THE TINUBU ADMINISTRATION
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu came to office promising major economic reforms.
Fuel subsidies were removed.
The exchange-rate regime was substantially altered.
The government defended these measures as necessary steps toward restoring macroeconomic stability and putting Nigeria's finances on a more sustainable footing.
Those reforms have imposed significant costs on households and businesses, while the administration has continued to argue that the benefits will emerge over time.
Against that background, fiscal transparency becomes even more important.
A government asking citizens to accept difficult economic reforms must be able to demonstrate that public finances are being managed transparently.
That is not an opposition demand.
It is a democratic obligation.
The IMF disclosure therefore deserves neither sensationalism nor dismissal.
It deserves an audit trail.
Nigeria needs to know what the ₦8.8 trillion represents.
Which projects?
Which contractors?
Which financing arrangements?
Which authorising institutions?
Which years?
Which budget documents?
Which implementation reports?
And how much has actually been spent?
Until those questions are answered with documents, the controversy will continue to fuel suspicion.
And suspicion is precisely what transparent government is supposed to prevent.
---
THE REPUBLIC NEEDS THE BOOKS OPEN
The central lesson from the IMF controversy is larger than President Tinubu or any opposition politician.
It concerns the integrity of the Nigerian state.
A democracy cannot function properly when citizens cannot easily reconcile what government says it spent, what government actually borrowed and what government actually delivered.
Every naira of public expenditure should ultimately be traceable.
Every major contract should be defensible.
Every budgetary allocation should have a legitimate purpose.
And every public official entrusted with the nation's resources should be answerable to institutions established by law.
The IMF has raised a serious fiscal-transparency question.
The Federal Government has disputed aspects of the interpretation.
Now the Nigerian public deserves the evidence.
Open the books.
Publish the records.
Follow the money.
Let the documents—not political allegiance—determine what happened to Nigeria's ₦8.8 trillion.
That is the standard a democratic republic should demand.