As Senate Confronts Tinubu’s Economic Team over N58.47trn 2026 Budget…

Nigeria’s N58.47 trillion 2026 budget has ignited a fierce confrontation between the Senate and the federal government’s economic team, exposing deep tension over oil revenue assumptions, mounting debt and chronic capital implementation failures, in a high-stakes battle that could reshape the nation’s fiscal direction and political accountability. Sunday Aborisade reports.

In Nigeria’s turbulent fiscal theatre, the annual appropriation ritual is often wrapped in optimism. Growth projections gleam. Oil benchmarks stretch confidently into the future. Revenue targets are framed as inevitabilities rather than aspirations. But last Thursday inside the National Assembly, the script faltered dramatically.

What began as a routine engagement between the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the federal government’s economic managers turned into a tense confrontation over credibility, realism and political accountability.

At stake was the N58.472 trillion 2026 Appropriation Bill, which is the largest in the country’s history.

Leading the legislative charge was Senator  Olamilekan Adeola, chairman of the committee. Across the table sat the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Wale Edun, flanked by the Minister of Budget and Economic Planning, Atiku Bagudu; the Minister of State for Finance, Doris Uzoka-Anite; Chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji; and the Accountant General of the Federation, Shamsedeen Babatunde Ogunjimi.

Hovering above the exchange was the economic reform agenda of President Bola  Tinubu, and the looming question of whether the administration’s ambitious fiscal projections rest on firm foundations or hopeful arithmetic.

Senate’s grievance was stark and unsparing: Nigeria cannot continue to pass massive budgets anchored on revenue projections that repeatedly underperform.

Adeola reminded the economic team that the 2026 budget document originated from the executive, not the legislature. The assumptions, the oil benchmarks and the revenue forecasts were executive proposals and must therefore withstand scrutiny.

He pointed to troubling performance gaps in recent fiscal cycles. In one year, oil revenue performance dipped to about 18 per cent.

In another, it stood at 36.5 per cent, which is far below projections that had underpinned expansive expenditure plans. For lawmakers, these were not abstract numbers. They were evidence of systemic overestimation.

“How do we explain such underperformance?” Adeola asked pointedly. “Do we reduce this budget or leave it as it is?”

The question reverberated through the chamber. It was not rhetorical theatre. The Senate is actively considering trimming the N58.47 trillion proposal if the executive cannot provide stronger guarantees of revenue realism.

Central to the dispute is the 1.84 million barrels per day oil production benchmark embedded in the 2026 proposal. Edun described it as a “stretch target,” arguing that ambitious benchmarks encourage higher performance rather than complacency. As long as government does not spend beyond realised revenue, he maintained, fiscal stability would be preserved.

Edun said, “It is a stretch target so that authorities do not settle for lower output but as long as we do not spend what we do not have, we are within safe limits.”

Yet senators remain wary. Nigeria’s oil sector has struggled with theft, pipeline vandalism, operational inefficiencies and global price volatility. For lawmakers, a stretch target without corresponding structural guarantees can morph into a fiscal mirage.

Beyond projections, the Senate zeroed in on a more politically combustible issue: implementation failures.

Year after year, budgets are passed with ambitious capital expenditure components designed to fund infrastructure, social services and development projects. Year after year, capital releases to Ministries, Departments and Agencies have fallen short.

Adeola pressed the economic team on the fate of the 2024 and 2025 capital components. Why were projects stalled? Why were contractors left waiting? Why were allocations made without corresponding releases?

Edun’s initial response, that funding of the capital components was ongoing, did not fully satisfy the committee. It was Uzoka-Anite who offered firmer assurances. She disclosed that payments for outstanding 2024 capital projects were commencing immediately and that MDAs had been directed to upload their cash plans for 2025 to enable prompt disbursement.

“The financial management system is back online. We are ready to start, but the MDAs must complete their documentation requirements,” she assured.

She gave a clear commitment: full implementation of the 2024 and 2025 capital components would be achieved before 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 interesting turn, the NRS boss, Adedeji aligned in principle with Senate concerns over revenue realism. Budget efficiency, he said, is not about the size of the appropriation but about what can actually be implemented.

“If we think we have 10 naira and we plan with 100 naira in mind, we will create problems for ourselves,” he warned.

His intervention underscored a structural shift in Nigeria’s oil revenue framework.

He explained that under the Petroleum Industry Act, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company now operates as a limited liability company.

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.

Adedeji disclosed that projections indicate about 47 per cent of oil company output translates into government revenue under current arrangements.

That ratio, lawmakers noted, reinforces the need for sober revenue assumptions and rigorous cost management.

Security spending added another layer of complexity. Edun insisted that security had been prioritised under the 2026 proposal, with emergency funding consistently released for critical military procurements, including foreign acquisitions. Some of these expenditures, he explained, might not be immediately visible under conventional classifications but were met within approved Federation Account limits.

In a nation grappling with insurgency and widespread insecurity, such spending is politically unavoidable. Yet it competes with infrastructure, education, health and social welfare for limited fiscal space.

Senators are keenly aware that as debt servicing rises, trade-offs grow harsher.

Adeola placed Nigeria’s debt stock at about N152 trillion and floated a bold proposal: asset sales to reduce the debt portfolio and lower future borrowing costs.

Reducing the principal, he argued, could ease long-term fiscal pressure.

Edun countered that Nigeria’s principal challenge lies not in its debt-to-GDP ratio but in the high pricing of debt in international markets.

Developing countries, he argued, are subjected to steep interest rates that inflate borrowing costs disproportionately. Nigeria, he disclosed, is currently chairing a G24 technical group meeting where debt sustainability and pricing distortions dominate discussions.

Still, senators appeared unconvinced that global inequities alone explain domestic fiscal stress. They are pressing for tighter fiscal discipline and more conservative projections to avoid perpetuating cycles of underperformance.

Edun presented a cautiously optimistic economic outlook. Growth, he said, hovers around four per cent. Inflation is trending downward. Foreign reserves are rising. Exchange rate stability is improving. He cited renewed investor confidence, including a reported $20 billion commitment by Shell, as evidence of reform momentum.

The administration’s broader ambition is to raise investment to 30 per cent of GDP and push annual growth to seven per cent, levels that could meaningfully reduce poverty and expand opportunity.

Greater private sector participation in infrastructure, Edun added, would ease pressure on public borrowing.

Yet legislative skepticism remains firm. Macroeconomic indicators, senators suggest, must translate into tangible improvements with roads completed, projects delivered, salaries paid and inflation moderated in household markets.

After nearly two hours of public exchanges, the engagement shifted behind closed doors. What transpired there may shape the final architecture of the 2026 Appropriation Bill.

Will the executive recalibrate its oil benchmarks? Will revenue projections be moderated? Will capital implementation be ring-fenced and monitored more aggressively? Or will the Senate ultimately accept the stretch targets but impose stricter oversight mechanisms?

What is certain is that the National Assembly is asserting its constitutional authority over the power of the purse with renewed vigor.

The 2026 budget is not merely a financial document; it is a political litmus test for the Tinubu administration’s reform credibility.

Nigeria stands at a fragile fiscal crossroads. Oil remains central but uncertain. Debt is significant but manageable with discipline. Reform is underway but incomplete.

The confrontation in the Senate chamber crystalised a fundamental dilemma: can ambition outrun arithmetic?

As lawmakers look into the numbers in the weeks ahead, the N58.47 trillion proposal will either emerge refined and fortified, or trimmed in the name of realism. In that decision lies not only the fate of a budget, but the trajectory of Nigeria’s fiscal future.