Nigeria has failed to meet the United States’ minimum fiscal transparency requirements for the second consecutive year, with Washington faulting gaps in budget disclosure, budget execution, public auditing and procurement transparency.
TheNewsGuru (TNG) reports the findings are contained in the 2026 Fiscal Transparency Report released by the United States Department of State, which assessed 139 governments and one entity over the 2025 review period.
Only 73 of those assessed met the minimum fiscal transparency requirements, while 67 did not. Among the governments that failed, 14 recorded significant progress, while 53, including Nigeria, made no significant progress in addressing previously identified shortcomings.
The report is significant for Nigeria because the country is simultaneously undertaking far-reaching economic reforms under President Bola Tinubu, including changes to taxation, public finance management and revenue mobilisation, while relying heavily on increased government revenue and borrowing to finance its development agenda.
At the heart of the US assessment is the quality and completeness of information available to Nigerians and other stakeholders on how public money is raised and spent.
According to the State Department, “budget documents did not provide a substantially complete picture of the government’s revenues and expenditures” during the period under review.
It also faulted the budget for failing to adequately break down expenditure supporting executive offices, making it difficult for citizens and other stakeholders to obtain a complete picture of government spending.
The report further questioned the reliability of budget implementation, stating that “actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget.”
Executive budget proposal faulted
TNG reports the United States also raised concerns about the timing of Nigeria’s budget disclosures.
While acknowledging that Nigeria made its enacted budget and end-of-year report widely accessible to the public, including online, the report said the executive budget proposal was not made publicly available within the required reasonable timeframe.
For a country where the annual budget is one of the most important instruments for determining government priorities, the delay has implications for legislative scrutiny, public participation and accountability.
The State Department’s assessment effectively highlights a gap between making a budget available after approval and ensuring that citizens, lawmakers, civil society organisations and other stakeholders have adequate time to examine the government’s proposals before they become law.
The report recommends that Nigeria should make its executive budget proposal “widely and easily accessible to the public” and improve the quality and completeness of information contained in its budget documents.
Audit independence under scrutiny
Another major concern identified by Washington is the country’s public auditing system.
The report said Nigeria’s supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and did not publish substantive reports within the required timeframe.
The finding puts the spotlight on the ability of the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation to independently scrutinise government finances and provide citizens with credible information on whether public funds were used in accordance with approved appropriations.
For Nigeria, the issue is particularly important because the National Assembly, civil society organisations and the public rely heavily on audit reports to assess government expenditure and identify financial irregularities.
A weak or delayed audit process can make it more difficult to establish whether money appropriated for roads, healthcare, education, security, infrastructure and other public services was actually spent for those purposes.
Procurement transparency questioned
The US report also identified shortcomings in Nigeria’s disclosure of public procurement information.
Although Nigeria has legal and institutional frameworks governing public procurement, Washington said information on government procurement contracts was not sufficiently accessible to the public.
The concern is particularly relevant given the enormous volume of public expenditure channelled through government contracts.
For Nigerians, procurement transparency is not merely a technical issue. It affects the ability of citizens and watchdog organisations to know who receives government contracts, what is being purchased, at what cost and whether contractors ultimately deliver the projects for which public money is committed.
The United States has previously identified corruption and a lack of transparency in procurement as significant concerns for businesses operating in Nigeria. A recent US Congressional Research Service assessment similarly noted that US companies have expressed concern about corruption and inadequate transparency in Nigeria’s procurement processes.
Natural resources: laws exist, disclosure remains a concern
Nigeria received some positive assessments in the report.
The United States acknowledged that information on the country’s debt obligations, including major debt owed by state-owned enterprises, was publicly available.
Washington also noted that Nigeria had a sound legal framework governing its sovereign wealth fund and disclosed information about its funding sources and general approach to withdrawals.
The country was further credited with having laws and regulations specifying the criteria and procedures for awarding natural-resource extraction contracts and licences and generally following those rules in practice.
However, the broader concern remains whether sufficient information about public resources and their management is available to citizens.
That question carries particular weight in Nigeria because of the central role of oil and gas revenues in government finances.
What the report means for Tinubu’s reforms
The US assessment comes at a sensitive moment for the Tinubu administration.
Since taking office in 2023, President Tinubu has pursued major economic reforms aimed at improving government revenue, reducing fiscal pressures and attracting investment. The removal of the petrol subsidy, changes to foreign-exchange management, tax reforms and efforts to improve public financial management have been central to the administration’s economic agenda.
The reforms have received praise from the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and international credit-rating agencies for improving aspects of Nigeria’s macroeconomic stability and investor confidence.
But the fiscal transparency report highlights a different dimension of economic management: whether Nigerians can clearly see how government resources are collected, allocated and spent.
That distinction is important.
A government may increase revenue, reduce certain fiscal distortions or improve macroeconomic indicators without necessarily providing citizens with a sufficiently detailed account of how public funds are being deployed.
For Nigeria, the challenge is therefore not simply raising more money. It is also ensuring that citizens can follow that money through the budgetary and expenditure process.
Presidency reacts
Meanwhile, the Presidency has pushed back against any interpretation of the report as a comprehensive verdict on Nigeria’s public financial management.
Presidential spokesman Sunday Dare said the assessment should be viewed as an external benchmark rather than a complete picture of the country’s fiscal governance.
According to the Presidency, the Federal Government remains committed to strengthening fiscal transparency, accountability and public financial management through initiatives including the Open Treasury system and digital procurement reforms.
The response reflects the government’s argument that Nigeria has continued to build systems intended to improve access to public financial information, even though international assessments may continue to identify gaps.
The State Department itself stressed that its fiscal transparency assessment should not be interpreted as a corruption rating. Failure to meet the minimum transparency requirements does not, by itself, establish that a government is corrupt.
Rather, poor fiscal transparency can create conditions in which corruption, waste and financial mismanagement become more difficult to detect.
A warning amid rising fiscal pressures
The report nevertheless presents a serious challenge for Nigeria at a time when the country faces significant fiscal pressures.
Nigeria continues to contend with a relatively low revenue-to-GDP ratio, substantial debt-servicing obligations and the need to finance infrastructure, security and social programmes.
The Congressional Research Service estimates that Nigeria is expected to spend about $11.6 billion on debt servicing in 2026, nearly half of government revenue, underscoring the pressure on the country’s finances.
In such an environment, transparency becomes increasingly important.
When government revenue is limited and borrowing costs are high, citizens and investors need credible information about where available resources are going. They also need confidence that expenditure corresponds with approved budgets and that deviations are properly explained and subjected to legislative and audit scrutiny.
The US assessment therefore goes beyond the question of whether Nigeria has published a budget. It raises questions about whether the budget provides a sufficiently comprehensive picture of the country’s finances and whether actual government spending can be effectively compared with what lawmakers approved.
Second consecutive failure
The latest assessment also means Nigeria has remained outside the US minimum fiscal transparency benchmark for a second consecutive year.
That continuity makes the finding more consequential than an isolated annual setback.
The 2026 report indicates that Nigeria made no significant progress during the 2025 review period in addressing the deficiencies identified in its fiscal transparency framework.
The challenge before the Federal Government is therefore to demonstrate measurable improvement, rather than merely point to the existence of transparency initiatives.
For Nigerians, the most important test will be whether budget proposals are published early enough for meaningful scrutiny; whether approved budgets accurately reflect government revenues and expenditure; whether actual spending is properly reported; whether audit institutions can operate independently; and whether procurement information is readily available to the public.
As Nigeria pursues its economic reforms and seeks to attract domestic and foreign investment, the credibility of its public financial management system will remain a critical part of that effort.
The message from Washington is ultimately straightforward: publishing financial documents is not enough if those documents do not provide citizens with a complete, timely and reliable picture of how public resources are raised and spent.
For a country seeking to rebuild public trust while asking citizens to endure difficult economic reforms, that transparency gap could prove just as important as the reforms themselves.