By Abubakar M. Kareto
When the Budget Office of the Federation is willing to stretch credibility to defend phantom line items, it becomes clear that Nigeria’s public finance management is facing a systemic crisis. The ongoing legislative committee probes in the National Assembly have pulled back the curtain on a troubling reality. Our budgeting framework is no longer just prone to human error, it is increasingly vulnerable to institutional fabrication.
What should be a rigorous tool for national development has, in many respects, devolved into a realm where non-existent agencies are assigned multi-million naira provisions, and responsibility is deftly deflected whenever the public demands answers.
The Ghost in the Appropriation Machine
The controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, known as the PFIPC, highlights the depth of this issue. Appearing before the House of Representatives, the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Mr. Tanimu Yakubu, sought to defend the inclusion of the PFIPC in the 2026 Federal Budget.
His core defence rested on two main assertions. First, he claimed the council was not a creation of the current administration, but had its roots in the Presidential Economic Advisory Council inaugurated by former President Muhammadu Buhari on October 9, 2019. Second, he argued that the Budget Office merely acted on official code assignments and recruitment waivers issued by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.
Mr. Yakubu emphasized that although 802.98 million Naira was budgeted for personnel costs, no financial clearance was issued, no staff were hired, and not a single kobo of public funds was released.
However, a major red flag emerged when the Head of the Civil Service directly contradicted this narrative before lawmakers. She confirmed that her office turned down the request of the PFIPC for structure approval because the entity failed to submit the required legal documents. Her office neither allocated office space nor deployed staff to any such council.
This contradiction raises fundamental administrative questions. The Presidential Economic Advisory Council and the PFIPC are fundamentally different entities with distinct names, mandates, and institutional setups. There is no official gazette, executive order, or act of parliament authorizing a transition from an advisory panel to a full-fledged council.
Furthermore, if the agency predated this administration, basic operational details should exist. Who served as its Director-General under President Buhari? Which ministry supervised it, where was it housed, and under what line items did it operate between 2019 and 2023? Bureaucratic codes and recruitment waivers do not generate spontaneously. If the agency was non-existent, it remains unexplained how it passed multiple layers of executive and legislative scrutiny to sit inside an enacted Appropriation Act signed into law.
Focusing solely on whether cash was ultimately disbursed misses the broader point. The core concern is how a non-existent entity secured administrative recognition, official codes, and an allocation in the budget in the first place.
Scapegoating as Governance Strategy
The tendency to trace the origin of the PFIPC back to the previous administration points to a broader pattern in public discourse. Former President Muhammadu Buhari has increasingly become a convenient target for current administrative difficulties.
When macroeconomic pressure and inflation mount, the official narrative focuses heavily on structural flaws inherited from past choices, overlooking the immediate need for clearer monetary and fiscal coordination. When fuel pump price adjustments spur public outcry, the blame is shifted to subsidy overhangs from previous terms rather than addressing current market dynamics and local refining capacity.
Similarly, the rising national debt burden is framed around the historical accumulation of ways and means, side-stepping the management of ongoing fiscal deficits and borrowing. Even when phantom budget entities emerge, officials point to legacy commitments of past councils instead of addressing the breakdown of internal budget verification filters.
While historical context is essential when evaluating national economic health, relying on past administrations to explain current budgetary anomalies risks weakening institutional accountability.
Clumsy Allocations and the 2026 Budget Reality
The PFIPC issue is not an isolated occurrence within the federal budget. A review of the 2026 Appropriations Act reveals additional line items that raise questions regarding institutional alignment and fiscal clarity.
Consider the 15.4 billion Naira, equivalent to approximately 11 million US Dollars, provision earmarked under the Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on MDGs, which sits under the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation. This massive sum is designated for the Renewed Hope Transport Scheme and the provision of vehicles in Abia State.
While targeted regional interventions can serve specific public needs, placing a multi-billion naira state-specific transportation fleet initiative within a federal humanitarian ministry underscores persistent challenges in target setting and institutional overlap. When budget line items lack clear linkage to overarching ministerial mandates, effective oversight becomes considerably harder to maintain.
This issue reflects a pattern seen in past controversies over budget padding, ghost projects, and unvetted line items. When public finance systems rely on manual adjustments without strict digital checks, unverified entities repeatedly find their way into law.
The True Cost of Fiscal Disconnect
Beyond the executive explanations, the National Assembly oversight committees must move past routine public hearings and exercise their full constitutional powers. Subpoenaing the original paper trail from the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Accountant-General is the only way to establish true accountability.
Furthermore, when billions are sequestered into misplaced or fictitious line items, the real loss is borne by citizens who miss out on essential primary healthcare, classroom upgrades, and critical rural infrastructure. Budgetary discipline is not an academic exercise, it directly dictates the quality of life for millions of Nigerians. Independent civic watchdogs and public policy organizations continue to highlight these anomalies, proving that internal government verification filters are failing to self-correct without external pressure.
The Path to Restoring Fiscal Integrity
If public institutions aim to strengthen credibility, public explanations must be backed by verifiable contemporaneous records. Resolving these recurring budgetary anomalies requires clear, systematic steps.
First, the Budget Office should publish the originating documentation for controversial entries, detailing the sponsoring ministry, requesting authority, and underlying legal instruments.
Second, the government must establish automated verification filters within the Government Integrated Financial Management Information System platform to flag any line item lacking an active, legally gazetted establishment act.
Finally, authorities need to eliminate the practice of inserting localized capital projects or transport acquisitions into unrelated social welfare mandates.
Until these measures are implemented, attempts to explain away budgetary inconsistencies through narrative shifts will fall short. True accountability is demonstrated through transparent processes, clear documentation, and institutional rigor.
Abubakar M. Kareto is a Public Affairs Analyst and Strategic Communications Specialist writing on governance, public policy, and fiscal transparency. He can be reached via email at amkareto@gmail.com and on X (formerly Twitter) @amkareto.
