News
Bakassi Peninsula:Ex-AGF Aondoakaa,SAN, Lauds Late President Yar’Adua’s Action
Former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Mike Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN has maintained that the decision by late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s to handover Bakassi peninsula was to safeguard Nigeria’s security and should not be faulted rather it should be commended.
The former number one chief law officer of the Federation made the declaration on Tuesday, when he appeared on ARISE NEWS daily morning show.
Aondoakaa said he had “sleepless nights” when the Bakassi handover took place and felt compelled to clarify misrepresentations. He emphasised that neither President Obasanjo, who implemented the Green Tree Agreement, nor President Yar’Adua, who presided over the 2008 handover, endangered Nigeria’s security.
“I don’t want the name of late President Yar’Adua to be tainted that he took a decision that affected the security of our country. We did not. We did not from our data,” he declared.
The Bakassi Peninsula dispute stemmed from a 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that ceded the oil-rich territory from Nigeria to Cameroon. In line with the 2006 Green Tree Agreement, Nigeria formally handed over Bakassi to Cameroon in August 2008 under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, following initial steps taken by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. The decision sparked controversy at home, with critics arguing it stripped Cross River State of its coastal status and vital oil resources, while supporters maintained it upheld international law and preserved Nigeria’s diplomatic credibility.
Aondoakaa argued that the data available at the time showed Cross River State was not stripped of its littoral status. He pointed out that the Eastern Naval Command headquarters in Calabar — established in 1971 — remained operational, proving that Nigeria’s coastal security was not compromised.
He further explained that the Navy and the Surveyor General’s office worked with the government to ensure the demarcation line did not harm Nigeria’s security interests, stressing that the Supreme Court later acted on evidence different from what his administration had.
“This is not to say that I’m challenging the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices. It was the evidence presented to them. There might have been an error in the data presented to them. It’s possible. The Supreme Court acts on evidence. And it is the evidence presented to them. It is the evidence given to us that we felt Nigeria was adequately protected. And Cross River was not hewed out. Our concern then was the Eastern Naval Command headquarters, that it should not be hewed out,” he said.
On the contentious issue of oil wells, Aondoakaa said the 72 oil wells in question represented less than three percent compared to over 2,000 wells in Akwa Ibom.
“If you look at 72 oil wells in relation to 2,000 oil wells in Akwa Ibom, it is less than 3%. So, our goal was not about the oil. In our demarcation, we ensured that everything was well-protected and well-balanced,” he said.
Aondoakaa maintained that if errors exist, they stem from later political decisions or evidence presented after he left office in 2010, not from actions taken under Yar’Adua’s government.
See Full Transcription Below
BAKASSI
During our time because of the shores of Calabar we still felt they were a Littoral state. When Federal Government was to hand over Bakassi in 2005, the Navy objected and raised a lot of objections on the premise that they would not have access to the Sea if Cross River was hemmed out — and that would constitute a very serious threat.
Cameroon is a friendly nation, but every friendly nation is a potential enemy. It was a very serious complaint by the Nigerian Navy, and the Eastern Navy Command Headquarters was established in 1971 by the government of General Gowon to curtail any maritime challenges coming from the Gulf of Guinea. It was something President Yar’Adua took seriously.
Of course, not only President Yar’Adua; the Navy also made objections to the National Assembly. So, before we took the decision to hand over, we had to work on that threat that the Nigerian Navy would be unable to access the Sea if Calabar was hemmed in.
In my opinion, the practical demographics is laid out at the demarcation in the Northern part of Bakassi which is still part of Nigeria — and it ensures that Calabar would be protected by the Nigerian Navy because Calabar was still left as a Littoral state. They were not hemmed out.
This was based on the technical report given to us in 2008 because we had to invite the Surveyor General and international experts to look at the judgement of the International Court of Justice and the delineation and know whether the Nigerian Navy situated in Calabar would be hemmed out. But this was not the case.
I left office and the judgement came in 2012 that Cross River was hemmed out. I was shocked… The Supreme Court in their wisdom decided on what was brought to them. At that time, President Yar’Adua had died, I was no longer in office, so I don’t know up till now what kind of data was presented that brought that result.
If they say so, then the Eastern Navy Command should have been shut down because they would have no access to the Sea from the Calabar axis. To me, Cross River State ought to be an oil-producing State in the Northern part of Bakassi based on the line of demarcation which we resolved. This area was supposed to remain in Cross River, but I don’t know what happened.
It may be the data that was brought to the Supreme Court was different from the one the Navy resolved with us — because we did not shut down the Eastern Navy Command Headquarters in Calabar and move it to Port Harcourt. We needed an Armed Force that can police the Gulf of Guinea, and that is the Navy. We gave the Nigerian Navy direct access from Calabar Estuaries to the Atlantic Sea.
I don’t know what transpired, but I think it is something that has to be resolved.
Mind you, as former Attorney General I cannot challenge the wisdom of the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will give judgement based on evidence. President Yar’Adua wouldn’t have taken the security of the country lightly. The practical effect of our decision is that the Eastern Naval Command remained in Calabar — so how do they operate if they are hemmed out?
So, part of the Bakassi — which is now the western part — is still remaining in Cross River, and the in-shores are still there which are open to the Sea.
Actually, I am at a loss as per the data that was presented which was the basis of the argument at the Supreme Court. That is the extent I can talk about it because when the Supreme Court is involved, you have to be careful.
I am only talking in defence of the decision of the President Yar’Adua Administration, which led to me going to Calabar to hand over Southern Bakassi on 14th August 2008.
There was nothing like that, we never had any complaints until 2012 when we heard that Cross River was hemmed out. We never received such negative complaints.
That is the position.
GOVERNORSHIP
Sincerely, I don’t want to comment on that issue, because only God gives power to whom He wants, and when He wants.
If you go by provisions of the Constitution, I am qualified — anybody is qualified to be Governor of the state if he or she meets the Constitutional requirement.
I can only answer that question in relation to the people making threats.
I was born around the sixties during the Tiv riots and political crisis. When I grew up, I read terrifying stories of how people were killed or maimed. If you were NPC, then UMBC would murder you. Some would put a nail in your head and kill you.
I am mindful of what is going on. I read history of the same thing happening in the Western part of Nigeria at that time, and such incidents have not occurred again in Nigeria — maybe it reared out in Ondo in 1983.
The leadership of the country, especially under President Tinubu — starting from President Yar’Adua — tolerated opposition. Right now, you have ADC going around; some even attack the physical credibility of the president, and I have not seen where their members have been attacked.
Something is coming out in Benue that is frightening. I read in the papers where the president of the sub-regional group KUDA (Kunav Development Association) was saying that any person from Kunav that contests for governorship should be attacked and beaten up. Then the Vice Chairman of the local government also said that any Kunav son that contests shall be attacked.
I am not from Kunav, but then there is this general slogan: “No Alia, No Benue.”
These are unfortunate rhetorics. We should never look in that direction. If you are popular, then there is no need to input violence in your campaign, because if you are indeed popular then people will vote for you.
If you have done things to endear people to re-elect you, they will.
Though I have not heard it personally from the Governor, he needs to call those people to order. By saying so, they are saying he is no longer popular. By saying so, they are insinuating that he has lost that popularity and therefore this time they are not going to persuade the people but use force to bring him back.
They should remember what happened in Tiv land in the Sixties.
Constitutionally, I am qualified because the Constitution of Nigeria is clear. What is written in the Constitution cannot be added to nor subtracted from. I have not been convicted or declared bankrupt. By the Constitution, I am qualified to contest.
The only frightening aspect, and I want to allude to it, is this has to stop. If people attack the credibility of the President and he never said such things — because he believes in the rule of law — then why should people who claim to be supporters of the Governor say that “If there is No Alia, No Government, No Benue?”
The Reverend Fr. as Governor ought to be a man of peace. It is up to him to advise his supporters to respect the law to prevent any likelihood of breakdown of law and order in Benue State and Nigeria at large.
This thing is frightening. This is the flagship issue that we believe should be addressed quickly, because what happens in Benue can become dangerous.
What happened in 1962 and 1964 should never be allowed again in Nigeria, and it is not something the security agencies should take for granted.
So, that’s the only thing I will say about this for now. When the time comes, we will know about it. By law, the time for campaign has not started. Until then, as a law-abiding citizen, I will not talk further on that issue.
News
Stakeholders, Staff Benefit from NDPHC’s Procurement Training Initiative
The Niger Delta Power Holding Company (NDPHC) has reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, accountability, and efficiency in project delivery by hosting a high-level refresher and sensitization training for its management team, staff, and stakeholders.Organized by the Human Resources Department at the company’s headquarters, the programme was designed to strengthen institutional capacity, refresh knowledge, and promote greater effectiveness in the discharge of responsibilities.The training was anchored on the theme “Operationalizing by Way of Experimenting the Procurement Processes While Navigating the Pre-Bidding Stage Through to Post Bidding”, and facilitated by DEVD Integrated Project Ltd. Discussions focused on procurement processes, emphasizing due process, compliance, and optimization in power sector project execution.Participants were guided through the critical stages of procurement, from pre-bidding to post-bidding, with facilitators stressing the importance of adherence to established procedures. The session also provided a platform for robust engagement on stakeholder collaboration, highlighting how effective partnerships can drive efficiency and accountability in project delivery.The initiative enjoyed strong backing from the NDPHC Executive Management (EXCO), led by Engr. Jennifer Adighije, FNSE, FINEEE, Managing Director/CEO. She was joined by her team: Engr. Bello Babayo Bello, FNSE, FINEEE, Executive Director (Networks); Engr. Abdullahi Kassim, Executive Director (Generation); Hon. Dr. Steven Andzenge, Executive Director (Legal Services); Hon. Chukwuma Umeoji, Executive Director (Corporate Services); Hon. Omololu Agoro, Executive Director (Finance & Accounts); and Hon. Patrick Obahiagbon, Executive Director (Strategy and Commercial). Their collective presence underscored the importance of the training to the company’s strategic vision and operational goals.Facilitators encouraged participants to apply the knowledge gained to improve operational efficiency and foster stronger collaboration across departments and with external stakeholders. They noted that the lessons learned would help strengthen the company’s institutional framework and ensure that projects are delivered in line with global best practices.The event brought together management staff and other relevant stakeholders, creating an opportunity to exchange ideas and refresh their understanding of procurement processes. It also reinforced NDPHC’s commitment to professional development, transparency, and accountability in its operations.By investing in capacity-building programmes such as this, NDPHC continues to demonstrate its resolve to enhance professional standards and institutional effectiveness. The company emphasized that the training reflects its broader vision of building a stronger, more accountable institution capable of delivering sustainable power solutions to Nigeria.The sensitization exercise forms part of NDPHC’s ongoing efforts to ensure that its workforce remains equipped with the skills and knowledge required to meet the demands of the power sector. It underscores the company’s belief that continuous learning and adherence to due process are essential for achieving its corporate objectives and delivering value to stakeholders.
News
Hon. Jafaru Yakubu Commends President Tinubu’s Approval of Mutum Biyu–Garba Chede Road Reconstruction
Hon. Jafaru Yakubu, Member of the House of Representatives and Chairman, House Committee on Nigeria–China Friendship Group, has commended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR for granting approval for the urgent rehabilitation and total reconstruction of the Mutum Biyu–Garba Chede Road, a 48km stretch in Taraba State.
Yakubu, who sponsored the motion in the House of Representatives calling for immediate intervention on the road, said the President’s approval is a bold and strategic response to the plight of commuters and communities along the corridor. He explained that the motion, which was debated and adopted by the House, underscored the dangers of continued neglect, including accidents, economic disruption, and the risk of total collapse.
He further acknowledged the National Security Adviser (NSA) Mallam Nuhu Ribadu for adopting a non-kinetic approach in addressing the crisis. According to Yakubu, the NSA’s intervention elevated the urgency of the project, treating infrastructure development as a vital instrument of peace, security, and stability. By drawing national attention to the road’s deterioration, the NSA highlighted the grave risks posed to lives, trade, agriculture, and access to healthcare.
The Mutum Biyu–Garba Chede Road, constructed in the early 1980s, has deteriorated severely due to age and lack of maintenance. With the collapse of the Namnai Bridge along the Jalingo–Wukari highway, the road became the sole alternative route for heavy-duty trucks, worsening its condition and exposing communities to untold hardship.
Hon. Yakubu assured his constituents that he will continue to work closely with the Federal Ministry of Works, FERMA, and the North East Development Commission to ensure the project’s swift execution. He emphasized that the House Committee on Works has already been mandated to conduct oversight and report back within four weeks, a step he believes will guarantee transparency and accountability in the delivery of the project.
“As Chairman of the Nigeria–China Friendship Group, I am deeply conscious of the importance of strategic partnerships in advancing national development. This reconstruction is not merely about infrastructure—it is about saving lives, strengthening commerce, and reaffirming government’s duty to serve its people. On behalf of my constituency, I extend profound gratitude to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR and the NSA for their steadfast commitment,” Yakubu declared.
The approval of this project, following Yakubu’s sponsored motion, is widely seen as a demonstration of leadership that listens and acts decisively. For communities in Mutum Biyu, Garba Chede, and adjoining areas, the reconstruction represents hope for safer travel, renewed economic activity, and restored dignity after years of neglect.
Analysts note that the development is not just about fixing a road but about reconnecting people, boosting agriculture, and reinforcing national cohesion at a time when infrastructure remains central to Nigeria’s growth agenda.
News
BUDGET OFFICE OF THE FEDERATIONRESPONSE TO THE 2026 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT ON NIGERIA

- Introduction
The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) notes the observations on Nigeria contained in the 2026 Fiscal Transparency Report of the United States Department of State. The Federal Government welcomes objective assessments of its public financial management system and remains committed to the continuous improvement of fiscal transparency, accountability and access to public finance information.
The Report acknowledges important areas in which Nigeria meets fiscal transparency requirements, including the public availability of the enacted budget and end-of-year fiscal information; the disclosure of debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt; the legal and disclosure framework governing the sovereign wealth fund; and the existence and application of statutory procedures governing natural-resource extraction contracts and licences.
Other observations in the Report require clarification when considered in the context of Nigeria’s institutional allocation of responsibilities and the range of budgetary and fiscal information already in the public domain. The purpose of this response is therefore not to dispute the value of external scrutiny, but to ensure that the factual record and the structure of Nigeria’s fiscal system are properly understood. - Mandate of the Budget Office of the Federation
The BOF is responsible for coordinating the preparation and consolidation of the Federal Government’s budget, and for monitoring and reporting on its implementation within the framework established by law and government fiscal policy.
Its responsibilities include coordinating the preparation of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and Fiscal Strategy Paper (MTEF/FSP); issuing Budget Call Circulars; coordinating the preparation of Medium-Term Sector Strategies; coordinating the preparation and consolidation of the Executive Budget Proposal; supporting the appropriation process; monitoring budget implementation; and producing periodic Budget Implementation Reports.
These responsibilities form part of a wider public financial management system in which different institutions perform duties assigned to them by the Constitution and by statute. Debt recording and management fall principally within the remit of the Debt Management Office; government accounting, treasury and cash-management functions reside principally in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation; external audit is constitutionally assigned to the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation; while federal procurement operates within the statutory framework administered by the Bureau of Public Procurement and individual procuring entities.
The observations in the Report are therefore best considered in the context of this institutional division of responsibility. Fiscal transparency is the product of an interconnected system; no single institution produces or controls every category of information on which an assessment of the entire system must depend. - Publication and Accessibility of Budget Information
The Report recommends that Nigeria make its Executive Budget Proposal widely and easily accessible to the public, including online. The BOF respectfully notes that the online publication of the Executive Budget Proposal and other major budget documents has, for several years, formed part of the Federal Government’s established budget process.
The BOF routinely publishes major documents produced at successive stages of the fiscal cycle. These include the MTEF/FSP, the Executive Budget Proposal and detailed estimates, Appropriation Acts, implementation guidelines, and periodic Budget Implementation Reports.
For example, the 2025 Executive Budget Proposal was published on the BOF website on 18 December 2024 alongside the 2025 Appropriation Bill. The 2026-2028 MTEF/FSP was similarly published, while the 2026 Appropriation Bill and its detailed estimates were placed on the BOF website on 8 January 2026.
The purpose of continuing reform, therefore, is not to create a practice of publication where none exists, but to make an established practice more timely, systematic and easier for users to navigate. Fiscal information is useful not merely because it exists, but because it is published at the appropriate time, clearly identified and readily connected to the other documents needed to understand the fiscal picture.
Following presidential assent to an Appropriation Act, the signed instrument is subjected to validation and line-by-line reconciliation against the version passed by the National Assembly before the final budget details are reflected on the Government’s financial management platform and released for public use. This process is intended to ensure that the figures, codes and statutory references placed before the public correspond with the instrument that has become law.
For the 2026 Appropriation Act, this process took longer than would ordinarily be desirable. The Budget Office considered it preferable to complete the necessary validation before publication rather than place in the public domain figures that might later require correction. That choice protected the integrity of the published record, but the delay also demonstrates the need to shorten the interval between presidential assent and public availability.
The lesson is therefore twofold: published fiscal information must be reliable, but that reliability must increasingly be achieved without sacrificing timeliness. The BOF is reviewing its internal sequencing, validation and publication arrangements with that objective in mind. - Completeness of the Presentation of Government Revenues and Expenditures
The Report recommends that the budget provide a substantially complete picture of government revenues and expenditures. Nigeria’s fiscal framework is expressed through several related documents rather than through a single instrument. The MTEF/FSP establishes the macroeconomic and fiscal assumptions underlying the annual budget. The Executive Budget Proposal, Appropriation Bill and detailed estimates set out proposed expenditure allocations, revenue assumptions and the financing framework. Budget Implementation Reports subsequently show performance against approved benchmarks.
Taken together, these documents contain extensive information on projected revenues, expenditure proposals, financing and the operations of Government-Owned Enterprises. The budget documentation also provides information on grants, external financing and other material fiscal flows within the Federal Government’s reporting framework.
Expenditure is presented through institutional and economic classifications, including allocations to ministries, departments and agencies. The Government also publishes detailed estimates relating to the Presidency and other institutions of government, subject always to the legitimate requirements of law, national security and operational confidentiality.
The BOF therefore considers that an assessment of Nigeria’s fiscal transparency is most complete when it examines the available budget documents as a body, rather than treating any one document as though it were intended to contain the entire fiscal account.
This does not remove the need for improvement. Citizens, investors and other users of fiscal information should be able to understand the broad relationship among revenue, expenditure, financing and fiscal risks without having to reconstruct the fiscal picture from numerous documents. The Office will therefore continue to improve consolidation, cross-referencing and presentation so that information already disclosed across different fiscal documents can be more readily understood as a coherent whole. - Expenditures Relating to Executive Offices
The Report recommends a clearer breakdown of expenditures supporting executive offices. The BOF agrees with the transparency objective underlying this recommendation.
Appropriations to offices and institutions within the Executive are subject to the same constitutional appropriation process that applies to other Federal Government entities. Detailed estimates are already published within the budget documentation. Where expenditures are currently aggregated within broader administrative, personnel or service-wide classifications, there remains scope to improve their presentation without compromising legitimate security, statutory or operational considerations.
The BOF will accordingly continue to examine the classification and presentation of such expenditures with a view to improving public understanding within the applicable legal and security framework. - Variance Between Budgeted and Actual Revenues and Expenditures
The Report observes that actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond with the enacted budget. The BOF considers that this observation would benefit from greater precision regarding the standard against which such correspondence is being assessed.
An appropriation is an authority to spend; it is not, in every circumstance, a guarantee that the entire amount appropriated will become available in cash. Actual fiscal outcomes depend on realised revenues, oil production and prices, tax collections, exchange rates, financing conditions, cash availability and the timing of expenditure execution. A difference between an approved budget and the eventual outturn must therefore be interpreted rather than merely observed.
The central transparency question is whether material deviations are identified, explained and reported. This is one of the purposes of the Budget Implementation Reports produced by the BOF, which compare revenue and expenditure performance against approved benchmarks and explain significant departures from the fiscal plan.
At the same time, persistent or unusually large differences between appropriations and outturns can weaken the usefulness of the budget as an instrument of economic management. The Government’s continuing reforms therefore place greater emphasis on realistic revenue forecasting, improved revenue mobilisation, stronger commitment controls, better cash planning and closer alignment between appropriations and available financing. - Audit Independence and Publication of Audit Reports
The observations concerning the independence of the Supreme Audit Institution and the publication of audit reports relate principally to the constitutional and statutory mandate of the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation and to the wider legislative framework governing public audit.
The BOF supports a strong and independent external audit function as an essential component of fiscal accountability. It will continue to provide the budgetary and implementation information required within its mandate and to cooperate with the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation and other oversight institutions.
Institutional or legislative questions concerning the independence, powers and publication obligations of the Supreme Audit Institution are, however, appropriately addressed in conjunction with the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation, the National Assembly and other authorities responsible for the applicable legal framework. - Public Procurement Information
Federal procurement is governed by the Public Procurement Act and the institutional framework administered by the Bureau of Public Procurement, while procurement transactions are undertaken by individual procuring entities. The recommendation concerning the publication of accessible information on procurement contracts should therefore be addressed principally through that framework.
The BOF nevertheless recognises the close relationship among appropriation, procurement, commitment and payment. Greater interoperability among budget, procurement and treasury information systems would materially improve the public’s ability to follow expenditure from appropriation through procurement to eventual payment and delivery. The Office supports the continued development of such integrated public financial management arrangements. - Timeliness, Institutional Capacity and the Fiscal Responsibility Framework
Fiscal transparency should be treated as a continuing institutional obligation, not as an exercise undertaken solely in response to an external assessment. The experience of producing statutory fiscal reports has, however, brought into sharper focus a question that warrants attention beyond administrative improvement alone.
Fiscal reports are assembled from numerous sources across government. Their reliability depends on the timely submission of information, reconciliation among institutions, resolution of discrepancies and verification before publication. Where these processes repeatedly require more time than the statutory reporting period permits, the response should not simply be to normalise lateness.
Government must first improve the processes that can be improved: clearer responsibility for source data, earlier submission, greater automation, greater interoperability among systems and stricter reporting discipline.
However, where experience over time demonstrates that a statutory deadline no longer reasonably accommodates the number of institutions, datasets and verification steps required to produce a reliable report, there is also a legitimate case for reviewing the law itself.
The purpose of the Fiscal Responsibility Act is to strengthen fiscal discipline, accountability and transparency. Its reporting provisions should therefore impose deadlines that are demanding enough to compel administrative discipline, but sufficiently realistic to permit the publication of information whose accuracy can be defended.
The Federal Government should accordingly consider, through the appropriate legislative process, whether aspects of the reporting timetable under the Fiscal Responsibility Act require amendment in the light of experience since its enactment. Such a review should not weaken reporting obligations. Its purpose should be the opposite: to establish timelines that are credible, enforceable and capable of producing reports that are both timely and reliable. - Institutional Engagement and Continuing Improvement
The Fiscal Transparency Report can also serve as a basis for constructive technical engagement. The BOF considers it useful to deepen dialogue with the United States Government and other development partners on the methodology used in fiscal transparency assessments, particularly the treatment of multiple publicly available fiscal documents, the measurement of budget credibility, and the standards applied to timeliness and accessibility.
Such engagement should be approached as an opportunity for clarification and institutional learning rather than as a dispute over the assessment. The Office may also explore appropriate technical assistance arrangements to strengthen its capacity in fiscal reporting, information management, digital publication, interoperability and public accessibility. Any such cooperation should complement Nigeria’s own reforms and operate within the Government’s legal, institutional and information-security framework. - Conclusion
Nigeria accepts the principle at the heart of fiscal transparency: citizens and other stakeholders should be able, without unnecessary difficulty, to know what the Government intends to raise and spend, what the legislature has authorised, what was eventually received and spent, and how public resources were accounted for and audited.
Nigeria has already built a substantial architecture for making this information public. The question before us is therefore not whether disclosure exists, but how to make the existing system faster, clearer, more complete and easier to understand.
There are areas in which Government must improve its own processes. There are areas in which fiscal information already exists but must be assembled and presented more coherently. There are responsibilities that belong to institutions other than the Budget Office. There may also now be statutory reporting timelines whose continued practicality deserves examination in the light of experience.
A mature system should be able to acknowledge all four points without defensiveness.
The Budget Office therefore welcomes external assessments that assist Nigeria in strengthening its institutions. It also considers it important that such assessments take account of the full range of fiscal documents made publicly available and of the constitutional and statutory division of responsibilities among institutions.
The Federal Government remains committed to a budget system in which fiscal decisions are not only lawful and disciplined, but are also increasingly transparent, accessible, intelligible and capable of independent public scrutiny.
Tanimu Yakubu
Director-General
Budget Office of the Federation
Abuja
18 August 2026
-
Uncategorized6 years agoFG, states urged to harness flooding for ranching, others with technology – Agbaje
-
Headlines11 years agoBreaking: EFCC seals Borno House of Assembly, as Hon members take to their heels
-
News12 years agoNigeria Security Operatives Stage Manhunt For Homosexual Perpetrator
-
News10 years agoHow 21-year-old Girl fled community over accusation of lesbianism
-
News10 years agoYobe Gov Moves Against Deputy
-
Opinion7 years ago7 signs she has friend zoned you
-
Technology5 years ago
Online job placement company headhunts women
-
Headlines10 years agoBorno Dep Gov Abducts Another Church Leader
