Thesearchlight.com

By The Searchlight Investigative Desk / August 2026

In the humid corridors of power in Abuja and the state houses across Nigeria, a quiet realignment is underway that looks less like democratic competition and more like a hostile takeover financed by the public purse. Since late 2024, a cascade of opposition governors, senators, and House of Representatives members have crossed the carpet into the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Governors Sheriff Oborevwori, Peter Mbah, Douye Diri, Umo Eno, Siminalayi Fubara, and others from Plateau, Taraba, Adamawa, and Kano have joined the fold. National Assembly defections number in the dozens. By mid-2026, claims circulate that President Bola Tinubu effectively commands the loyalty of roughly 30–35 of Nigeria’s 36 governors.

The stated reasons are familiar: internal crises in the PDP and Labour Party, alignment with the “Renewed Hope” agenda, gratitude for presidential interventions. Yet persistent, detailed allegations from multiple sources paint a different picture: systematic financial inducement coordinated from the Presidency to clear the path for Tinubu’s 2027 re-election.

The Alleged Price List

In November 2025, Sahara Reporters published an exclusive, citing top Presidency sources claiming a structured package: ₦250 billion per defecting state governor (₦100 billion upfront “grant” upon commitment, ₦150 billion after formal defection), ₦1 billion per senator, and ₦500 million per House member. The report named recent PDP-to-APC movers as beneficiaries and described the scheme as supervised by senior officials close to the President.

These figures have been repeated across secondary outlets and opposition commentary. Daily Trust reported in 2026 that beyond cash, the “carrots” include multi-billion-naira projects, contracts, and promises of automatic tickets for re-election—precisely the tools that make defection rational for politicians facing weak opposition structures.

The APC and Presidency have denied outright baiting. National Publicity Secretary Felix Morka insisted defections are voluntary and driven by the administration’s performance. A top official told Vanguard that Tinubu “never reached out” and that politicians come because he is “fair and nice.” No independent audit, bank trail, or forensic accounting has publicly confirmed the Sahara figures. In Nigerian politics, such packages are notoriously difficult to prove: funds can move through opaque “security votes,” special interventions, FAAC-linked grants, or contractor fronts. The absence of smoking-gun documentation does not erase the pattern or the timing. Defections accelerated as 2027 approached and as federal allocations to states ballooned.

What is undeniable is the outcome: the opposition has been hollowed out. A ruling party that already controlled the centre now dominates the states and both chambers of the National Assembly. For a president seeking re-election, this is strategic gold. For Nigeria’s democracy, it raises the question of whether competitive politics is being replaced by a one-party reality purchased with public resources.

The Fiscal Backdrop: Money Everywhere, Results Nowhere

The inducement allegations gain potency against the backdrop of dramatically improved federal and state revenues. Fuel subsidy removal in May 2023 ended an estimated $7–7.5 billion annual drain. FAAC allocations surged, reports indicate jumps of 60–79 percent in subsequent periods, flooding state treasuries. Revenue-generating agencies have repeatedly exceeded targets. FIRS collected ₦21.6 trillion in 2024 against a ₦19.4 trillion target and set higher ambitions thereafter. Nigeria Customs Service posted ₦7.28 trillion in 2025 against a ₦6.58 trillion target (over 10 percent surplus), with individual commands such as Tin Can also overshooting. NNPC has likewise reported surpluses.

Yet total public debt climbed from roughly ₦87 trillion when Tinubu took office to ₦159.28 trillion by end-2025, an increase of over ₦70 trillion. Debt-service costs have absorbed much of the subsidy savings; finance officials have acknowledged that higher interest rates (rising toward 24 percent from around 8 percent pre-reform) and expanded spending (including a doubled minimum wage and social programmes) have offset the fiscal gains. Capital expenditure has lagged. Critics, including former CBN Governor Muhammadu Sanusi II, have asked the obvious: if the subsidy is gone and revenues are up, why the continued heavy borrowing?

The Growth That Does Not Reach the People

Government spokespersons and the President himself repeatedly describe the economy as “performing.” The data show modest aggregate recovery after the initial reform shock. Real GDP growth stabilized around 3.3–4.1 percent in 2024–2025 (World Bank and IMF figures), driven largely by services, some industrial rebound, and recovering oil output. Inflation, which peaked near 34–35 percent in late 2024, moderated significantly in 2025, falling toward the mid-teens or lower in some months after CPI re-basing, supported by tighter monetary policy, naira stabilization efforts, and the impact of the Dangote Refinery on fuel prices. Foreign reserves improved and the current account moved into surplus.

These are the headline indices of “growth.” They do not translate into improved welfare for most Nigerians. World Bank analyses show poverty rates rising: international poverty estimates climbed from around 42 percent in 2023 toward 48–51 percent by 2025, with tens of millions more people falling below the line. National poverty measures and multidimensional indicators point to similar deterioration. Real wages and consumption have been eroded by the cumulative effect of subsidy removal, naira depreciation, and sustained high food prices. Agriculture—which employs the majority of the poor, has lagged the services-led expansion. Food insecurity remains widespread.

The structural problem is classic: growth that is not broad-based, labour-intensive, or pro-poor. Macro stabilization has reduced some distortions, but the short-term costs have been borne disproportionately by households. Savings from subsidy removal and higher revenues have been consumed by debt service, recurrent spending, and, if the inducement reports contain even partial truth, political consolidation rather than transformative investment in productivity, infrastructure that reaches rural areas, or social protection at scale.

The Searchlight Assessment

Nigeria’s political class has long practiced cross-carpeting as survival strategy. What distinguishes the current wave is its scale, its concentration in the hands of one man seeking a second term, and the simultaneous explosion of federal resources available for distribution. Whether the precise Sahara figures are accurate or exaggerated, the incentives are clear and the outcomes measurable: a weakened opposition and an APC that looks increasingly hegemonic.

On the economy, the government is not inventing growth figures. Aggregate indicators have improved from the chaotic early reform period. But “performing” for investors, creditors, and statistical agencies is not the same as performing for the 140 million-plus Nigerians living near or below poverty lines. The disconnect between rising revenues, claimed growth, and deepening hardship is not a mystery of economics; it is a failure of prioritization and distribution.

If public funds—whether labelled grants, projects, or security interventions—are being deployed to buy political loyalty at the expense of genuine opposition and inclusive development, then the 2027 election risks becoming a formality rather than a contest. Nigerians deserve transparent accounting of the subsidy savings, the debt trajectory, and the real destinations of the extra revenues now flowing into state and federal coffers. Until that accounting arrives, the suspicion will remain that the searchlight of democracy is being dimmed by the glare of naira notes changing hands in the dark.

FAAC allocation transparency in Nigeria: How the System Works

How the System Works

The Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), established under the Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account, etc.) Act and rooted in Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), pools federally collected revenues (oil/gas, CIT, customs, VAT, EMTL, etc.) and distributes them monthly.

Vertical formula (approximate current shares of distributable revenue):

• Federal Government: 52.68%
• States: 26.72%
• Local Governments: 20.60%

Oil-producing states additionally receive 13% derivation. Horizontal distribution among states uses indices including equality, population, land mass, internal revenue effort, and social development factors (sourced via RMAFC). FAAC is chaired by the Minister of Finance and includes state Commissioners of Finance, the Accountant-General of the Federation, and presidential appointees. It reviews reports from revenue agencies (FIRS, Customs, NNPCL) and the CBN before approving shares.

Gross revenue is reduced by first-line deductions (cost of collection, statutory transfers/interventions, refunds, savings/stabilization, etc.) to arrive at the distributable pool.

What Is Transparent

• Monthly communiqués: The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) routinely issues statements detailing gross revenue, major deductions categories, distributable statutory revenue, VAT, EMTL, and breakdowns by tier of government (and often derivation). These are public and widely reported.
• NBS datasets: The National Bureau of Statistics publishes detailed monthly FAAC Disbursement Reports (PDF + Excel) covering recent periods (including into 2026), enabling state-level and historical analysis.
• NEITI reviews: Quarterly and annual analyses provide independent corroboration of totals, trends, and some component breakdowns (e.g., record highs post-subsidy removal).
• Civil society aggregation: Platforms (Agora Policy, Nigeria Open Data, Dataphyte, and others) compile long time-series, state/LGA trackers, and comparisons of FAAC vs IGR. Some offer searchable historical data going back years.
• Deductions disclosure: Communiqués list categories and aggregates. Analyses (e.g., Agora Policy) show that in recent years deductions have absorbed a large and rising share of gross revenue—reaching around 41% cumulatively in some multi-year windows (2023–2025), driven heavily by refunds and interventions.

Nominal allocations have surged dramatically since fuel subsidy removal and FX reforms (e.g., total disbursements rising sharply in 2024–2026), and this is visible in public data.

Key Opacity and Weaknesses

1. Inflow verification and reconciliation: Public data starts largely after agency remittances. Independent, real-time, or third-party reconciliation of what NNPCL, FIRS, Customs, and others actually collect versus what reaches the Federation Account is limited. States have occasionally disputed proposed figures as too low.
2. First-line deductions: While categories are published, detailed justifications, beneficiary breakdowns, project-level execution reports, and independent audits of “interventions” (including large security-related items), cost-of-collection efficiency, and savings accounts are frequently inadequate. Critics and some state actors have flagged growing deductions as inconsistent with full constitutional remittance-before-deduction principles and as reducing fiscal space for subnationals. The Federal Government maintains these are statutory and not diversions.
3. Formula and indices: RMAFC is reviewing the allocation formula. Current horizontal indices rely on outdated data (notably the 2006 census for population) and incomplete public documentation of sources/methodology for some social or economic factors. This reduces verifiability of “fairness.”
4. Local government layer: Despite the 2024 Supreme Court ruling on financial autonomy and direct payment, practical implementation (account profiling, actual direct transfers) has been uneven. Full LGA representation in FAAC remains incomplete. Citizens have better visibility of LGA inflows via some trackers, but state joint-account practices and spending control issues persist in places.
5. Downstream accountability (the biggest gap): Transparency largely stops at the point of disbursement. There is weak systematic public linkage between FAAC receipts and state/LGA budgets, audited expenditure, capital project delivery, or service outcomes. Increased nominal allocations coexist with persistent complaints about infrastructure deficits, recurrent-heavy spending, and limited welfare impact—exacerbated by inflation and naira depreciation that erode real purchasing power.
6. Timeliness and usability: Data is post-meeting rather than real-time. Official portals are not always user-friendly or comprehensive for machine-readable historical series; civil society fills the gap. Nigeria’s broader Open Budget Survey transparency score remains low (24/100 in the 2025 assessment).