By Aishat Omowumi Yekeen
Nigeria’s public finance system has developed substantial mechanisms for tracking government expenditure but lacks an equally strong system for determining whether public spending produces measurable improvements in citizens’ lives, a new report by the Athena Centre for Policy and Leadership has found.
The report, Beyond Transparency: Building Results Accountability in Nigeria’s Public Finance System, authored by Izuchukwu Christiantus Anyanwu and Chinaza Igwe, argues that the country’s public-finance system needs to move beyond tracking expenditure to measuring the actual results of government spending. Anyanwu, who signed the press release on behalf of the Athena Centre for Policy and Leadership, said the key issue confronting Nigeria’s public-finance system was no longer simply government spending but the value citizens derive from such expenditure.
“The central question facing Nigeria’s public-finance system is no longer whether government is spending, but whether public spending produces verifiable, sustained public value,” Anyanwu said.
The report, released on August 18, 2026, noted that Nigeria’s 2026 Federal Budget is ₦27.5 trillion, while approximately 41.6 per cent of federally retained revenue went to debt servicing in 2025. It also revealed that between 2024 and 2026, more than ₦5.9 trillion was allocated to health, ₦7.4 trillion to education, over ₦10 trillion to infrastructure and approximately ₦5.8 trillion to defence and security.
Despite these allocations, the report said increased government spending had not consistently translated into improved healthcare access, learning outcomes, transport efficiency or security conditions.
- ENTERTAINMENT INTELLIGENCE, 12 SEPTEMBER 2026
- Two Nigerians Killed In South Africa As Consulate Demands Justice
- Poetry, Play & Party to Bring Poetry, Theatre and Music Together in Abuja
- AkweyaTV Commits to Sponsorship of Ejor Conference
- Akwa Ibom Opens New Pathways for Young Champions
According to the report, the problem is institutional rather than simply fiscal. It identified Nigeria’s input-driven budgeting process, limited performance-based legislative oversight, weak incentives for ministries, departments and agencies to demonstrate outcomes, disconnected financial and sectoral performance systems, and compliance-focused auditing as major challenges. The Centre therefore concluded that Nigeria has developed a transparency architecture without establishing an equally strong results-accountability architecture. To address the problem, the report recommended four institutional reforms. First, it called for the publication of a results annex alongside the annual Appropriation Bill to link programme allocations to measurable outcomes.
Second, it recommended that ministries, departments and agencies be required to submit ex-post performance briefs before new capital projects are approved within the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework cycle.
The report also called for an expansion of value-for-money audits and the integration of their findings into budget preparation. In addition, it recommended upgrading the Government Integrated Financial Management Information System, GIFMIS, so it can interface with sectoral outcome systems and move beyond functioning primarily as a transaction ledger. The report identified the 2027–2029 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework as a critical institutional decision point for Nigeria. It argued that embedding performance data into budgeting, appropriation and auditing would determine whether the country’s public-finance system becomes a mechanism for delivering public value or remains primarily focused on expenditure management.
The Athena Centre said the proposed reforms would help strengthen accountability by shifting attention from whether government funds were spent to whether the spending achieved its intended purpose.
The report’s recommendations come as government continues to commit significant resources to critical sectors, including health, education, infrastructure and defence. The Centre’s findings, however, suggest that the effectiveness of those allocations should increasingly be assessed through measurable outcomes rather than expenditure figures alone.
