2027: WHERE ARE THE TRILLIONS? TINUBU’S LOANS, FAAC WINDFALL AND NIGERIA’S ECONOMIC REALITY

By Abdullateef Bamgbose

As the 2027 presidential campaign gathers momentum, political discourse appears to be drifting towards personality attacks, name-calling and political propaganda rather than a serious examination of the country’s economic performance and the welfare of its citizens.

The renewed attacks on opposition figures, particularly Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), raise questions about the issues the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) intends to place before Nigerians as it seeks another four years in office.

While political leaders are entitled to challenge the credibility, competence and policies of their opponents, Nigerians deserve something more substantial than allegations about the personal lifestyle of opposition candidates.

For an administration that has spent almost four years in office, the most important campaign question should be what it has achieved with the enormous resources available to it since President Bola Tinubu assumed office on May 29, 2023.

More importantly, what has happened to the additional revenue generated following the removal of petrol subsidy, the unification of the foreign exchange market and the substantial increase in allocations from the Federation Account?

These questions become even more compelling when examined against the administration’s growing appetite for foreign and domestic borrowing.

More revenue, more borrowing
One of the major arguments advanced by the Tinubu administration in defence of its economic reforms is that the removal of petrol subsidy has significantly improved government revenue and created more resources for development across the three tiers of government.

Indeed, the figures show a remarkable increase in allocations from the Federation Account.
According to an analysis of Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) figures, the Federal Government, the 36 states and the 774 local government councils shared approximately N26.5 trillion in 2025, compared with N14.11 trillion in 2024.

This represents an increase of about 84.2 per cent.

The Federal Government’s allocation increased from N5.02 trillion in 2024 to approximately N14 trillion in 2025, representing an increase of 178.8 per cent.

Similarly, state governments received N7.52 trillion in 2025, compared with N5.24 trillion in 2024, while local governments received N4.98 trillion against N3.85 trillion in the preceding year.

These figures are significant because they demonstrate that the removal of subsidy and other fiscal adjustments have substantially increased the resources available to governments.

The trend continued in 2026. Between January and September, the aggregate allocations to state governments amounted to approximately N6.92 trillion, while local governments received about N4.86 trillion.

In September alone, FAAC distributed N2.428 trillion among the three tiers of government. The Federal Government received N832.24 billion, states received N799.87 billion, while local governments received N560.66 billion. Oil-producing states also received N236.05 billion as derivation revenue.

The question, therefore, is not whether government revenue has increased. The figures establish that it has.

The more important question is what Nigerians can point to as the tangible benefits of this unprecedented increase in public resources.

If states and local governments are receiving substantially higher allocations, why do many communities continue to grapple with poor roads, inadequate healthcare facilities, unemployment, insecurity and deteriorating public infrastructure?

Why should communities continue to experience severe deprivation when the resources available to their governments have increased considerably?

This is not to suggest that every state or local government has failed. Some have undertaken significant projects. However, the overall national development impact must be measured against the resources received and the needs of the population.

The subsidy savings question
The Federal Government’s own reform scorecard provides another important dimension to this debate.

According to the Federal Ministry of Finance, estimated subsidy savings distributed across the federation amounted to approximately N15.8 trillion. Of this amount, the Federal Government received about N5.43 trillion, states received N6.52 trillion, while local governments received N3.88 trillion.

The figures raise legitimate questions about the management and utilisation of these resources.

The government has also identified additional expenditure pressures, including wage adjustments, foreign debt servicing, strategic infrastructure, electricity support and other public obligations.

However, the existence of competing expenditure obligations does not remove the responsibility of government to demonstrate measurable improvements in citizens’ living conditions.

The removal of subsidy was justified partly on the grounds that the resources previously spent on subsidising petrol would be redirected towards infrastructure, healthcare, education and other essential services.

Nigerians are entitled to ask whether the promised benefits have been delivered in proportion to the economic sacrifices they have been made to endure.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the administration’s economic management is the continued accumulation of public debt despite the substantial increase in government revenue.

The Debt Management Office’s figures show that Nigeria’s total public debt rose from N87.38 trillion in June 2023 to N166.79 trillion as of June 30, 2026.
This represents an increase of approximately N79.41 trillion, or 90.9 per cent.

The debt stock comprises N91.59 trillion in domestic obligations and N75.20 trillion in external debt.

It is important to acknowledge that the increase in the naira value of external debt has also been influenced by exchange-rate depreciation. Therefore, the entire increase cannot be presented as fresh cash borrowing by the Tinubu administration.

Nevertheless, the increase in the country’s debt obligations is substantial and demands greater scrutiny.

The administration has continued to approach the National Assembly for approval of different borrowing facilities.
In July 2025, the Senate approved the 2025–2026 external borrowing plan, which included requests for $21.8 billion, €2.1 billion and ¥15 billion, alongside a €65 million grant.

In December 2024, Nigeria issued a $2.2 billion Eurobond, followed by another $2.35 billion Eurobond issuance in November 2025.

In March 2026, the National Assembly approved external financing facilities of approximately $6 billion. The package included a structured financing arrangement of up to $5 billion with First Abu Dhabi Bank and approximately $1 billion in export financing arranged through Citibank for the rehabilitation of Tin Can Island Port and the Lagos Port Complex.

The National Assembly also approved a $516.3 million facility from Deutsche Bank for the Sokoto-Badagry Superhighway.

Beyond these facilities, Nigeria has received substantial development financing from multilateral institutions, including the World Bank.

Among the major facilities approved during the period were $2.25 billion for economic reforms in June 2024, $1.57 billion for the HOPE and SPIN programmes in September 2024, and $1.08 billion for education and resilience programmes in March 2025.

These facilities should not all be added together as if they were fresh cash already disbursed. Some are approvals, some are bond issuances, and others are development financing commitments.

Nevertheless, they illustrate the scale and variety of financing commitments undertaken by the administration.
The latest development is even more revealing.
On October 27, 2026, President Tinubu sought National Assembly approval for a proposed $20.52 billion and €1.045 billion external borrowing plan under a supplementary borrowing arrangement.
However, the President subsequently withdrew that request and submitted a revised request for $7.707 billion.

On November 11, the House of Representatives received the request, which the President said was intended to implement the external borrowing component of the 2026 Appropriation Act.

The N7.7 billion-dollar equivalent, valued at N10.79 trillion using the budget exchange rate of N1,400 to the dollar, forms part of the N29.218 trillion borrowing provision in the 2026 budget.
The distinction is important: the $7.7 billion request is not necessarily an additional borrowing provision on top of the N29.218 trillion already budgeted. It is a request for statutory authorisation to implement the external component of that borrowing provision.

Nevertheless, the country’s dependence on borrowing to finance government expenditure remains a legitimate subject for national debate.

The National Assembly’s responsibility
The growing debt profile also raises questions about the effectiveness of the National Assembly’s oversight responsibilities.
Under the leadership of Senate President Godswill Akpabio, the Senate must demonstrate that it is not merely an institution for approving executive borrowing requests.

The legislature has a constitutional responsibility to scrutinise the terms, conditions, purposes and repayment implications of every loan before granting approval.

The March 2026 approval of approximately $6 billion in external financing on the same day the requests were presented raises legitimate questions about the depth of legislative examination.

Similarly, the latest borrowing requests should be subjected to detailed scrutiny by the relevant committees on local and foreign debts and appropriations.

The committees must establish the actual projects to be financed, the cost of each project, the interest rates, repayment schedules, grace periods and the economic benefits expected from the facilities.

Nigerians should not be left with the impression that the National Assembly is merely providing legislative cover for the borrowing ambitions of the executive.
With debt servicing consuming approximately 65 per cent of government revenue in the first half of 2026, according to figures cited in recent reports, the country cannot afford to treat borrowing as an ordinary budgetary exercise.

The implication is that an increasingly large proportion of public revenue is committed to servicing existing obligations, leaving fewer resources for other government responsibilities.

The Senate must therefore demonstrate that its approval of loans is based on independent assessment rather than political convenience.

GDP growth versus the economic reality

The administration can point to
improvements in some macroeconomic indicators, and these should not be ignored.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria’s economy grew by 4.43 per cent in real terms in the second quarter of 2026, compared with 4.23 per cent in the corresponding period of 2025.

The nominal value of the country’s GDP stood at approximately N119.29 trillion during the quarter, while real GDP was estimated at N53.47 trillion.

The services sector remained the largest contributor to real GDP, accounting for 56.62 per cent, while agriculture contributed 26.15 per cent.

These figures indicate that the economy is expanding.

However, economic growth must ultimately translate into improved living conditions for ordinary Nigerians.

An increase in nominal GDP does not automatically mean that citizens are becoming wealthier. Nominal GDP is affected by price changes, while real GDP measures output after adjusting for inflation.

Similarly, the September 2026 inflation figures offer a mixed picture.
Nigeria’s headline inflation declined to 14.63 per cent in September from 15.39 per cent in August, while food inflation stood at 19.59 per cent.

Although the reduction represents progress in the fight against inflation, it does not mean that food and other essential commodities have returned to their previous prices.

A reduction in the inflation rate means that prices are increasing at a slower rate; it does not necessarily mean that prices are falling.

For millions of Nigerian households, the cost of food, transportation, electricity, education and healthcare remains a major economic burden.

This is why the government cannot rely exclusively on GDP growth and declining inflation rates to convince Nigerians that the economy is recovering.

The ultimate test is whether workers can afford basic necessities, whether businesses can operate profitably, whether young people can find employment and whether families can meet their daily needs without falling deeper into poverty.

What should dominate the 2027 campaign?

The 2027 presidential campaign should provide an opportunity for a serious national conversation about the country’s economic direction.

President Tinubu and the APC should explain what has been achieved with the additional revenue generated since the removal of petrol subsidy.

They should explain why the country continues to accumulate debt despite the increased revenue accruing to the federation, and provide a comprehensive account of the projects financed with previous loans.

The opposition should equally present credible alternatives, including how it intends to manage public finances, reduce the cost of living, address insecurity, improve electricity supply and create employment.

The responsibility of the opposition is not simply to criticise the government but to demonstrate that it has workable alternatives.

However, the ruling party has a greater responsibility to defend its record because it controls the machinery of government and has had the opportunity to implement its policies.

It is therefore diversionary for the APC to reduce the 2027 campaign to allegations about Peter Obi’s personal lifestyle, business dealings or other controversies while avoiding questions about the country’s economic performance.

Senator Adams Oshiomhole and other ruling party figures should understand that Nigerians are more interested in the cost of food, the availability of electricity, the condition of their roads, the security of their communities and the sustainability of the country’s debt than in political exchanges over cheap wine or other personal allegations.

Ultimately, the 2027 election should not be a contest over who can insult an opponent most effectively.

It should be a referendum on performance, accountability and the future of Nigeria.

The question is simple: after almost four years of increased government revenue, extensive borrowing and painful economic reforms, what has materially changed in the lives of ordinary Nigerians?

Until the government provides convincing answers, the politics of personality attacks will remain an inadequate substitute for an honest account of its stewardship.

Nigerians deserve to know where the trillions have gone, what the loans have achieved and why, despite increased government revenue, the burden of economic adjustment remains so heavy on ordinary citizens.

Abdullateef Bamgbose
Associate editor
Aljazira Newspaper
lateefbamgbose@gmail.com