A high-stakes battle that could change the country’s fiscal direction and political accountability has been sparked by Nigeria’s N58.47 trillion 2026 budget, which has exposed deep tension over assumptions about oil revenue, mounting debt, and persistent capital implementation failures. Aborisade reports on Sunday.
The yearly appropriation ceremony in Nigeria’s unstable fiscal environment is frequently cloaked in hope. Growth forecasts shine. Oil benchmarks look forward with assurance. Instead of being presented as goals, revenue targets are presented as inevitable. However, the script drastically faltered inside the National Assembly on Thursday.
A normal meeting between the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the federal government’s economic managers descended into a heated argument on political accountability, realism, and legitimacy.
The N58.472 trillion 2026 Appropriations Bill, the biggest in the nation’s history, was at risk.
Leading the legislative charge was Senator Olamilekan Adeola, chairman of the committee. Wale Edun, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, was seated across from Atiku Bagudu, the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning; Doris Uzoka-Anite, the Minister of State for Finance; Zacch Adedeji, the Chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service; and Shamsedeen Babatunde Ogunjimi, the Accountant General of the Federation.
President Bola Tinubu’s economic reform plan and the question of whether the administration’s lofty fiscal estimates are based on sound math or optimistic arithmetic loomed large over the conversation.
The Senate’s complaint was straightforward and uncompromising: Nigeria cannot keep passing large budgets based on revenue estimates that consistently fall short of expectations.
The government, not the legislature, created the 2026 budget document, Adeola told the economic team. Since the revenue projections, the oil benchmarks, and the assumptions were executive proposals, they must stand up to scrutiny.
He cited concerning discrepancies in recent fiscal cycles’ performance. The performance of oil revenue dropped to roughly 18 percent in a single year.
In another, it stood at 36.5 per cent, which is far below projections that had underpinned expansive expenditure plans. These figures weren’t just numbers to legislators. Systemic overestimation was demonstrated by them.
“How can we account for such poor performance?” Adeola posed a direct question. “Should we cut this budget or keep it the same?”
The chamber echoed with the query. Rhetorical theater was not used. If the government is unable to offer more robust assurances of revenue realities, the Senate is actively exploring cutting the N58.47 trillion proposal.
The baseline for oil output in the 2026 proposal, 1.84 million barrels per day, is at the heart of the conflict. Edun referred to it as a “stretch target,” contending that challenging standards promote greater achievement as opposed to complacency. He argued that fiscal stability would be maintained as long as the government did not spend more than it brought in.
According to Edun, “it is a stretch target so that authorities do not settle for lower output, but we are within safe limits as long as we do not spend what we do not have.”
Senators are still cautious, though. Theft, pipeline vandalism, operational inefficiency, and fluctuations in world oil prices have all been problems for Nigeria’s oil industry. Without accompanying structural guarantees, a stretch objective may become a financial illusion for legislators.
The Senate focused on implementation errors, a more politically sensitive topic than projections.
Budgets are passed year after year with large capital expenditure components intended to finance development, social services, and infrastructure. Capital releases to Ministries, Departments, and Agencies have been insufficient year after year.
Adeola questioned the economic team about what would happen to the capital components in 2024 and 2025. What caused the initiatives to stall? Why did contractors have to wait? Why did allocations occur without matching releases?
The committee was not entirely satisfied with Edun’s initial statement, which stated that fundraising for the capital components was ongoing. Uzoka-Anite was the one who provided more solid guarantees. She said that MDAs had been instructed to upload their funding plans for 2025 in order to facilitate timely disbursement, and that payments for unfinished 2024 capital projects were starting right away.
“The system for managing finances is back up and running. Although the MDAs need to finish their documentation needs, we are prepared to begin,” she promised.
She made it clear that the 2024 and 2025 capital components would be fully implemented by March 31, 2026.
For a legislature fatigued by recurrent delays, the promise was welcome, but it will be measured against execution, not intent.
In an intriguing development, Adedeji, the head of the NRS, agreed in principle with the Senate’s concerns over revenue reality. According to him, budget efficiency is about what can be done with the money, not how big the allotment is.
He cautioned, “We will cause ourselves problems if we plan with 100 naira in mind and think we have 10 naira.”
His intervention highlighted a fundamental change in Nigeria’s system for oil revenue.
He clarified that the Nigerian National Petroleum Company presently functions as a limited liability company in accordance with the Petroleum Industry Act.
Government earnings from oil production, according to him, flow primarily through taxes and royalties rather than direct crude sales, stressing that if production costs rise or operational efficiencies decline, the government’s net take shrinks.
According to forecasts, roughly 47% of oil companies’ output gets converted into government revenue under the current arrangements, Adedeji revealed.
Lawmakers pointed out the ratio emphasizes the necessity of strict expense control and sober revenue projections.
Spending on security introduced even another level of complexity. Edun maintained that the 2026 proposal had made security a top priority and that emergency funds had been regularly made available for important military purchases, including those made abroad. He clarified that while some of these expenses might not be readily apparent under traditional categories, they were made within authorized Federation Account limits.
Such expenditures are politically inevitable in a country that is struggling with insurgency and pervasive insecurity. However, it vies for few financial resources with social welfare, health, education, and infrastructure.
Senators are well aware that trade-offs become more severe when debt servicing increases.
With Nigeria’s debt stock valued at over N152 trillion, Adeola made the audacious suggestion to sell off assets in order to reduce the debt portfolio and future borrowing costs.
He said that lowering the principal could relieve long-term financial strain.
Edun retorted that the high cost of debt on global markets, rather than Nigeria’s debt-to-GDP ratio, is the country’s biggest problem.
He maintained that high interest rates unfairly increase borrowing costs for developing nations. He revealed that Nigeria is now presiding over a G24 technical group meeting where the main topics of conversation are pricing distortions and debt sustainability.
Senators, however, seemed skeptical that domestic fiscal duress can be explained solely by global injustices. To prevent recurring cycles of poor performance, they are advocating for stricter budgetary restraint and more cautious forecasts.
Edun’s economic forecast was cautiously positive. He stated that growth averages about 4%. The rate of inflation is declining. The amount of foreign reserves is increasing. The stability of exchange rates is getting better. He pointed to the resurgence of investor confidence and Shell’s alleged $20 billion commitment as proof that reform was gaining traction.
The administration’s overarching goal is to increase investment to 30% of GDP and accelerate yearly growth to 7%, which could significantly lower poverty and increase opportunities.
Edun went on to say that increased private sector involvement in infrastructure would relieve strain on governmental borrowing.
Legislative skepticism is still strong, though. Senators argue that macroeconomic metrics need to be translated into real improvements, such as finished roads, completed projects, paid salaries, and home market inflation that is regulated.
Following over two hours of open discussions, the focus of the engagement switched to private settings. The ultimate design of the 2026 Appropriations Bill may be influenced by what happened there.
Is the executive going to adjust its benchmarks for oil? Will estimates of revenue be lowered? Will there be stricter monitoring and ring-fencing of capital implementation? Or will the Senate eventually approve the stretch goals while enforcing more stringent oversight procedures?
There is no doubt that the National Assembly is resolutely claiming its constitutional jurisdiction over the purse power.
The 2026 budget is a political litmus test for the legitimacy of the Tinubu administration’s reforms, not just a financial one.
Nigeria is at a precarious financial juncture. Oil is still crucial but uncertain. Although debt is substantial, it is controllable with self-control. Reform is in progress but not yet complete.
Can ambition surpass arithmetic? This fundamental challenge was crystallized by the discussion in the Senate chamber.
The N58.47 trillion proposal will either be strengthened and improved upon, or it will be reduced in the interest of practicality, when parliamentarians examine the figures in the coming weeks. That choice affects not just a budget but also the course of Nigeria’s financial future.
