U.S. Report: Nigeria Again Fails Fiscal Transparency Test, Makes No Progress

Nigeria has once again failed to satisfy the United States government’s minimum fiscal transparency standards, with Washington reporting that the country made no significant progress in improving transparency and public financial management throughout 2025.

The assessment was contained in the U.S. Department of State’s 2026 Fiscal Transparency Report, which examined 139 governments and the Palestinian Authority.

Only 73 governments passed the minimum requirements, while 67 failed. Of those that failed, 14 recorded significant improvements and 53, including Nigeria, were classified as making no progress.

The assessment covers information gathered between January 1 and December 31, 2025, from the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, government agencies, international organisations and civil society groups.

The report’s findings come amid continuing concerns in Nigeria about budget implementation, particularly with the Federal Government simultaneously dealing with the 2024, 2025 and 2026 budget cycles.

Budget figures lack sufficient clarity, U.S. says

The State Department said Nigeria’s budget documents did not provide enough information for citizens to properly understand government revenue and spending.

“Budget documents did not provide a substantially complete picture of the government’s revenues and expenditures, or break down expenditures to support executive offices in the budget,” the report stated.

The U.S. said a transparent budget should provide details of revenue by source and type, including oil and non-oil income, while clearly showing expenditure by ministry and allocations to state-owned enterprises and special accounts.

It also raised concerns about the credibility of Nigeria’s budget execution, saying “actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget.”

That assessment contrasts sharply with the previous year’s report, in which the U.S. said Nigeria’s “budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue and were generally reliable.”

Nigeria was also criticised for failing to publish its executive budget proposal early enough. According to U.S. standards, the proposal should be released at least one month before the fiscal year begins and before lawmakers approve it.

Audit system fails independence test

The Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation was another major area of concern.

The U.S. said the country’s supreme audit institution did not satisfy international standards on independence and had failed to publish substantive audit reports.

“The supreme audit institution should meet international standards of independence, audit the executed budget, and verify the annual financial statements. The results of such audits… should be published within a reasonable period,” the report said.

The department warned that without an independent audit institution and accessible audit reports, citizens and lawmakers would have limited tools to scrutinise government spending.

Government contracts not sufficiently transparent

Nigeria’s procurement system also attracted criticism.

The report said accessible information on public procurement contracts was not made available to the public.

Although the U.S. acknowledged that Nigeria had laws governing the award of natural-resource contracts and licences and generally followed existing procedures, it said important details were not disclosed after awards were made.

Those details included the geographical location of concessions, the resource involved, the duration of the concession and the company that received it.

The report also introduced a new requirement concerning sovereign loans, requiring governments to publicly disclose loan terms, liabilities and collateralised assets.

Nigeria received some credit for making debt information, including major state-owned enterprise debt, publicly available. However, the U.S. did not assess whether the actual loan terms met the new standard.

Washington outlines reforms Nigeria should undertake

The U.S. State Department recommended several measures to improve Nigeria’s fiscal transparency.

Among them are the timely publication of the executive budget proposal, detailed disclosure of government revenue and expenditure, clearer information on executive-office spending and explanations for significant differences between approved and actual spending.

Washington also called for greater independence for the Auditor-General’s office, publication of audit reports and easier public access to government procurement contracts.

The department said fiscal transparency was important not only for accountability but also for economic confidence.

“Transparency provides citizens a window into government budgets and those citizens, in turn, hold governments accountable. It underpins market confidence and growth,” the report said.

It nevertheless cautioned that failing the fiscal transparency assessment did not by itself prove that corruption existed, although weak transparency could make corruption, financial crimes, unfair practices and predatory lending easier.

Presidency rejects broad interpretation of report

The Presidency said it had taken note of the U.S. assessment but insisted that fiscal transparency, accountability and public financial management remained key priorities.

Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare, said Nigeria was already implementing reforms designed to improve the management, reporting and disclosure of public resources.

“It is important, however, to properly contextualise the findings. The U.S. Fiscal Transparency Report is a specific assessment against the Department of State’s minimum fiscal-transparency requirements, particularly the public disclosure of national budget information, government contracts and natural-resource licenses,” Dare said.

He argued that the report should not be regarded as a complete assessment of every fiscal and public financial management reform taking place in Nigeria.

Dare pointed to progress recognised in the report, including the publication of budget documents and debt obligations.

He said Nigeria had also established mechanisms such as the Open Treasury initiative, public budget documentation, debt disclosures and procurement reforms.

“The federal government remains committed to improving the quality and timeliness of fiscal reporting, strengthening audit institutions, expanding access to procurement information and ensuring that citizens, investors and other stakeholders have greater visibility into the management and utilization of public resources,” he said.

BudgIT says report reflects longstanding concerns

Country Director of BudgIT, Vahyala Kwaga, said the U.S. findings were consistent with concerns raised by civil society organisations.

According to him, the federal budget itself had generally been clear about revenue and expenditure composition, but information about actual implementation had remained inadequate.

“The Nigerian federal budget has been consistently clear in terms of its revenue and expenditure composition. What hasn’t been clear for nearly one fiscal year is the report on budget implementation,” he said.

Kwaga also criticised the lack of independence of the Auditor-General’s office and said Nigeria continued to operate under an outdated audit framework.

He said several capital expenditure items had been placed under the vague description of “capital supplementation” and alleged that the 2024 and 2025 repeal and re-enactment laws introduced projects that had not gone through normal legislative scrutiny.

He also faulted the procurement process, saying contract information, procurement journals, bid-opening details and evidence of competitive bidding were often unavailable.

According to him, debt information was available but debt sustainability analyses had not been published since 2023.

Nigeria among 53 countries with no progress

The U.S. report found that 73 governments met the minimum requirements while 67 did not.

Countries that failed to meet the standards included China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Ukraine.

Of the 67 countries that failed, 14 made significant progress, including Bangladesh, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Niger, Sao Tome and Principe, and Senegal.

Nigeria was placed among the 53 countries that recorded no significant progress, alongside Algeria, Angola, Uganda, Tanzania, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Sierra Leone and Togo.

The assessment comes at a time of heightened debate over Nigeria’s 2026 budget, particularly allocations for religious infrastructure, constituency projects, duplicated projects and large lump-sum provisions such as “special presidential interventions” and “miscellaneous.”

The annual Fiscal Transparency Report is mandated by the U.S. Congress and is used by Washington in assessing its engagement with foreign governments and determining eligibility for certain forms of U.S. assistance.

For Nigeria, the report presents another challenge as the country moves towards the 2027 budget cycle, with renewed pressure on the Federal Government to improve transparency, budget credibility, procurement disclosure and public accountability.

Reps Committee Fails to Sit on PFIPC Probe, Raising Fresh Questions Over Investigation

The House of Representatives Ad hoc Committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, PFIPC, failed to hold its scheduled sitting on Wednesday, August 12, raising fresh questions about the next stage of the investigation.

The committee had previously adjourned its investigative hearing to August 12 and announced that it would reconvene with relevant government agencies and stakeholders.

However, journalists and other stakeholders who arrived expecting the hearing were left without an official explanation after the committee failed to sit.

As of press time, neither the committee nor its chairman, Yusuf Gagdi, had explained why the hearing did not take place or announced a new date.

The development comes at a crucial stage of the investigation, which has attracted considerable public attention over allegations surrounding the existence and activities of the purported agency.

Gagdi had announced at the previous sitting that the committee would reconvene on Wednesday, August 12, with relevant agencies expected to appear.

The session was also expected to potentially serve as the final public hearing before the committee begins preparing its findings and recommendations.

How the PFIPC controversy began

The controversy revolves around the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, an organisation alleged to have operated as a federal government agency without being established by law, executive order or another valid government instrument.

The issue gained prominence after the purported council was included in the 2026 Appropriation Act, with about N1.3 billion allocated to it.

The House subsequently established a 12-member Ad hoc Committee headed by Gagdi to investigate how an organisation allegedly lacking a legal foundation was included in the national budget and operated within government structures.

The investigation has since expanded to allegations involving forged official documents, office acquisition, government vehicle number plates and attempts to obtain recognition from various Ministries, Departments and Agencies.

Committee uncovers alleged forged documents

One of the major developments before the committee was the discovery of documents allegedly forged in the names of several government institutions.

Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, told lawmakers that his office processed a budget code for the council after receiving a letter purportedly from the State House.

He later informed the committee that the document did not actually originate from the Presidency.

“The letter that was received by the Treasury was respectfully addressed as coming from the State House. That letter was never issued by the State House,” Ogunjimi said.

The committee subsequently said it had identified about 29 allegedly forged official documents connected to the purported agency.

The documents were reportedly linked to institutions including the State House, Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and Federal Ministry of Finance.

Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Esther Walson-Jack, also acknowledged before the committee that adequate due diligence had not been carried out when documents concerning the purported agency were considered.

Gagdi later described the alleged appointment letter of the purported Director-General of the PFIPC, Adeniyi Adeyemi, as fake.

“It was established that the so-called letter of appointment was fake, confirmed by different agencies, and the Act presented to the Head of Service was equally fake, forged by the DG; it was established,” Gagdi said.

Adeyemi’s appearance remains unresolved

The committee’s inability to question Adeyemi publicly remains one of the unresolved issues in the investigation.

The panel had earlier directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi before it within 48 hours, arguing that his testimony was necessary to clarify outstanding issues surrounding the organisation and the documents attributed to it.

The police, however, told the committee that Adeyemi was being held under a court order and could not be released to appear before lawmakers without the necessary judicial authorisation.

With the latest failure of the committee to sit, uncertainty now surrounds the timing of the next hearing and how the panel intends to conclude its investigation.

PFIPC Probe: Reps Panel Misses Scheduled Hearing Without Explanation

The House of Representatives committee probing the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, PFIPC, did not sit as scheduled on Wednesday, August 12, despite earlier announcing the date for the continuation of its investigation.

The 12-member Ad hoc Committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, had adjourned its last public hearing to August 12 and indicated that government agencies and other relevant stakeholders would be invited to appear.

But the scheduled proceeding failed to take place, leaving journalists and stakeholders waiting for an explanation.

At the time of filing the report, the committee and Gagdi had not issued any statement explaining the cancellation or postponement of the sitting.

The development has generated fresh uncertainty around an investigation that has attracted significant public attention because of allegations that the purported government agency lacked a valid legal foundation.

Gagdi had previously said the committee would reconvene on August 12 and suggested that the sitting could be the final public hearing before the panel began compiling its findings and recommendations.

Council’s alleged legal status under investigation

The PFIPC controversy began after questions were raised about an organisation that allegedly presented itself as a federal government agency despite reportedly having no enabling law, executive order or other valid government instrument.

The controversy intensified when the organisation appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act with a provision of approximately N1.3 billion.

The House then set up the Ad hoc Committee to determine how the purported council entered the national budget and operated within the government system.

The scope of the investigation later expanded to allegations involving forged official documents, office arrangements, government number plates and efforts to secure recognition from different MDAs.

Accountant-General disowns letter

The committee heard that a letter allegedly originating from the State House was used in connection with the processing of a budget code for the purported council.

Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, initially told lawmakers that his office acted on the letter but subsequently confirmed that it was not issued by the Presidency.

“The letter that was received by the Treasury was respectfully addressed as coming from the State House. That letter was never issued by the State House,” Ogunjimi said.

The committee later announced that it had uncovered approximately 29 allegedly forged government documents associated with the organisation.

The documents were said to involve several government institutions, including the State House, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Federal Ministry of Finance.

Walson-Jack, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, admitted that the necessary level of due diligence had not been carried out when documents concerning the purported agency were processed.

Gagdi subsequently declared the alleged appointment letter of Adeniyi Adeyemi, who presented himself as the council’s Director-General, to be fake.

“It was established that the so-called letter of appointment was fake, confirmed by different agencies, and the Act presented to the Head of Service was equally fake, forged by the DG; it was established,” Gagdi said.

Police unable to produce alleged DG

Adeyemi’s absence from the committee’s public proceedings remains a major unresolved issue.

The lawmakers had directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce him before the committee within 48 hours so that he could answer questions about the council and the documents linked to it.

The police subsequently informed the committee that Adeyemi was being detained pursuant to a court order and could not be released to appear before the lawmakers without the appropriate judicial approval.

The failure of the committee to sit on the date it had announced has therefore added another layer of uncertainty to the probe, with stakeholders now awaiting clarification on when the investigation will resume and whether another public hearing will be scheduled.

Africans Angle News