October 19, (THEWILL) – The Federal Government’s attempt to discredit concerns over Nigeria’s spiralling debt interest burden has opened a fresh debate about fiscal transparency, the credibility of official economic assessments and the sustainability of the economic reforms being celebrated by the Bola Tinubu Administration.
In a press release issued on Sunday, the Federal Ministry of Finance challenged recent reports, based on the World Bank’s October Nigeria Development Update, that interest payments consumed 124 per cent of Federal Government revenue in the first half of the year.
The ministry described the conclusion as misleading, arguing that the calculation compares mismatched figures, excludes certain government revenues and fails to account for the seasonal pattern of tax collections.
It further maintained that the decline in the ratio from 156 per cent in the first half of 2025 to 124 per cent in the corresponding period of 2026 demonstrated that the government’s reforms were working.
But the ministry’s rebuttal, rather than settling the controversy, raises three fundamental questions: What constitutes a meaningful measure of debt sustainability? Is Nigeria’s revenue performance strong enough to support its growing obligations? Why should an economy pursuing fiscal reforms continue to devote such a large proportion of its available resources to servicing debt?
Analysts insist that the critical issue is not about government explaining away an alarming half-year statistic. Instead, it is whether the country is generating enough reliable revenue to finance its obligations, invest in productive infrastructure and deliver essential public services without repeatedly resorting to expensive borrowing.
The World Bank itself acknowledged Nigeria’s improving economic performance in its October 2026 update, noting that real GDP grew by 4.2 per cent in the first half of 2026, compared with 3.9 per cent in the corresponding period of 2025. But the institution also stressed that the challenge is to translate macro-economic improvements and higher public revenues into jobs, better services and improved living standards. The question, therefore, is whether the government’s defence adequately addresses the structural weaknesses behind the debt figures or merely shifts attention from the severity of the problem.
According to the Finance Ministry on Sunday, the Federal Government earned N6.2 trillion in revenue during the first half of 2026, against interest payments of N7.7 trillion. In the corresponding period of 2025, revenue stood at N3.6 trillion while interest payments amounted to N5.6 trillion.
These figures imply that revenue rose by approximately 72 per cent year-on-year, while interest costs increased by about 38 per cent. The interest-to-revenue ratio consequently fell from roughly 156 per cent to 124 per cent.
On this narrow comparison, economists agree that the government has a legitimate point: Revenue grew faster than interest payments and the gap between the two narrowed from N2 trillion to N1.5 trillion. However, they argue that the improvement must not be confused with the elimination of fiscal distress.
Interest payments exceeding the revenue reported for the period remain a serious warning, regardless of whether the final full-year ratio proves substantially lower. The figures indicate that, within the accounting perimeter used for the comparison, the government incurred more interest obligations than the revenue it collected.
An economist and finance expert, Mike Akannor, said the distinction matters because interest payments are only one component of government expenditure. The Federal Government must also finance salaries, security, healthcare, education, infrastructure, statutory transfers and other obligations. It must additionally meet principal repayments when debts mature.
“Where interest costs absorb a substantial share of revenue, the government has less flexibility to fund these competing priorities without borrowing more, accumulating arrears, reducing expenditure or securing additional revenue.
“The appropriate response is therefore not to dismiss the ratio because it is a half-year figure, but to explain transparently how the government intends to reduce its debt-service burden while protecting essential investment and public services,” Akannor explained.
Other analysts who spoke to THEWILL also pointed at several contradictions emanating from the government’s response.
One of the ministry’s strongest arguments is that the reported interest payments include obligations serviced by the Federal Government on behalf of other tiers of government, including external loans to states, while the revenue figure reflects federal revenue alone.
The ministry argues that this mismatch exaggerates the ratio because the numerator and denominator should cover the same level of government.
READ ALSO:
If the government services debt on behalf of states, the analysis should identify the relevant obligations, distinguish federal liabilities from pass-through payments and explain whether corresponding reimbursements or transfers are included in the revenue calculation.
Analysts maintain that this argument also creates an obligation for the government to provide a clearer fiscal picture. They argue that if the 124 per cent figure is misleading because it combines different government responsibilities, what is the comparable ratio after the necessary adjustments? How much of the N7.7 trillion represents interest on federal borrowing, how much relates to state obligations and how much is reimbursed by the states?
The ministry’s release does not provide a detailed reconciliation answering these questions. Nor does it publish an adjusted calculation showing precisely how the ratio changes when the alleged mismatch is corrected.
Consequently, the public is being asked to accept the government’s assertion that the comparison is misleading without receiving the complete alternative calculation needed to verify that assertion.
Akannor said a more credible rebuttal would publish the underlying figures, identify the relevant accounting classifications and provide comparable ratios for the Federal Government and the consolidated public sector.
“The ministry is right that unlike figures should not be compared. But the principle must apply equally to its own defence: The government cannot challenge an external assessment on accounting grounds without presenting sufficiently detailed evidence to establish a better measure.”
Dr Ben Adeniji, an accounts expert, said the government must show whether the increase is recurring, whether it reflects stronger non-oil revenue mobilisation and improved compliance, and how much is attributable to higher oil prices or other temporary factors.
“Oil-price windfalls can strengthen government revenue in the short term, but they are vulnerable to changes in global demand, production disruptions, price volatility and domestic output constraints,”, he said, adding: “A durable fiscal recovery requires a stronger tax base, improved non-oil revenue collection, reduced leakages and productive economic activity capable of generating revenue across different phases of the oil cycle.
More importantly, debt sustainability depends on the relationship between revenue, expenditure, borrowing costs, economic growth and the maturity profile of outstanding obligations,” Adeniji explained. Dr Muda Yusuf, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE) warned that Nigeria’s debt-service commitments were squeezing the government’s fiscal space. He pointed out that debt servicing is a first-line charge and cautioned against unrealistic revenue and oil-production assumptions that could undermine capital expenditure. He also argued that the growth of debt needed to moderate as revenue prospects improved.
Bismarck Rewane, Chief Executive Officer, Financial Derivatives Company, identified debt servicing as a significant constraint on Nigeria’s growth trajectory. His analysis suggested that the debt burden was not yet uncontrollable, but left the country with little margin for error. He has also argued that debt becomes dangerous when its growth is not matched by productivity and revenue generation.
In an analysis of Nigeria’s shrinking fiscal space, Lekan Olayiwola, fiscal-policy commentator, argued that debt servicing constrains the government’s freedom to implement policy. He highlighted the pressure on capital projects when debt commitments take priority and revenue falls short.
Sam Diala is a Bloomberg Certified Financial Journalist with over a decade of experience in reporting Business and Economy. He is Business Editor at THEWILL Newspaper, and believes that work, not wishes, creates wealth.
