The Centre for Social Justice has called on political parties and presidential candidates to make strict budget discipline, transparent public borrowing and enforcement of statutory debt limits central to their manifestoes ahead of Nigeria’s next political transition.
The centre warned that rising public debt, mounting debt-servicing obligations and persistent breaches of public financial management rules were undermining fiscal stability, calling for structural reforms to strengthen accountability in the management of public funds.
In a policy commentary, Paul Dasimeokuma of the Centre for Social Justice said Nigeria needed to move away from discretionary fiscal practices towards strict compliance with existing laws governing budget preparation, public borrowing and debt management.
He cited public debt exceeding ₦159 trillion and debt-servicing costs consuming more than half of federal revenues as indicators of the pressure on the nation’s finances.
Dasimeokuma identified delays in the passage of annual budgets as a major weakness in the country’s fiscal management system, arguing that disruptions to the statutory budget calendar undermine planning, spending predictability and the credibility of public accounts.
He cited the 2026 Federal Budget, which received presidential assent on April 17, 2026, as an example of the delays that have characterised the budgeting process.
According to him, Section 14(1) of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) 2007 provides a framework for the timely preparation and approval of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), which underpins the annual budget.
He argued that adherence to the statutory timetable would help ensure that annual budgets receive presidential assent before the commencement of the financial year on January 1.
The centre also raised concerns over the practice of extending capital budget implementation beyond the relevant financial year, sometimes resulting in multiple capital budgets being implemented concurrently.
Dasimeokuma said such practices created uncertainty in public expenditure management, distorted accounting and weakened the link between approved budgets and actual government spending.
He further questioned the management of public borrowing, arguing that loans should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny to establish their economic and social benefits before approval.
He referenced Section 41 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which sets out restrictions on government borrowing, and Section 44, which provides for cost-benefit analysis of proposed loans.
According to him, legislative approval of major borrowing proposals should be supported by transparent documentation showing the purpose, costs and expected returns of the loans.
He alleged that some borrowing approvals had been granted without sufficient public scrutiny and warned against the use of loans to finance recurrent expenditure and debt-service obligations.
Dasimeokuma also called attention to Section 42 of the Act, which provides for the establishment of an overall debt limit for the federation by the President in agreement with the National Assembly.
He argued that the absence of an established, legally binding debt ceiling had weakened the framework for controlling the growth of public debt.
To address the concerns, the centre urged political parties and presidential candidates to commit to four key reforms: establishing and enforcing a predictable budget calendar, implementing statutory debt limits, requiring the publication of cost-benefit analyses for external loans and ensuring transparency in public debt records.
It said the reforms should be incorporated into party manifestoes and translated into enforceable policies to improve fiscal discipline and strengthen public confidence in government financial management.
Dasimeokuma maintained that Nigeria’s economic stability would depend partly on whether political leaders could move beyond policy promises to enforce existing financial laws and ensure that public borrowing and expenditure were subject to effective oversight.
