FG Rolls Over 70% Of 2025 Capital Budget Into 2026

Federal Government rolls 70% of the 2025 capital budget into 2026 and pledges to implement 30% by 30 November 2026 amid procurement and cash flow reforms.

Atlantic Post

February 20, 2026

4–7 minutes

2026 budget, Atlantic Post, Budget Performance, Capital Expenditure, Fiscal Policy, GIFMIS, Procurement Act, Public Finance, Tinubu Administration

FG Rolls Over 70% Of 2025 Capital Budget — Why Nigeria Must Regularise Its Budget Cycle

The Federal Government has confirmed a decision to implement only 30 per cent of the 2025 capital budget within the current extended cycle and to roll the remaining 70 per cent into the 2026 capital framework.

The move was announced through the Office of the Accountant General. It was reinforced by the Minister of State for Finance. This follows instructions that Ministries, Departments, and Agencies align fully with the Public Procurement Act. They must ensure capital projects are cash backed before execution.

Officials say the truncated implementation is designed to fast track project execution. It aims to clear outstanding obligations. It also seeks to prevent wasteful disbursements outside approved procedures.

They add that warrants have been issued. The Government Integrated Financial Management Information System has been fully restored. This supports the roll out of the 30 per cent tranche by the end of next week. The target completion date for that tranche is 30 November 2026.

Yet behind the administrative language lies a stark performance deficit. The Budget Office data and contemporaneous reporting show that N18.53 trillion was appropriated for capital expenditure in 2025 for MDAs and others. The January to July pro rata benchmark stood at N10.81 trillion.

Actual capital releases over that seven month window amounted to just N834.80 billion leaving a pro rata shortfall of roughly N9.98 trillion and a delivery performance rate of only 7.72 per cent.

Those figures explain the government’s insistence on carryover but also expose deeper structural dysfunctions in Nigeria’s fiscal management.

For project managers and ministers charged with delivery, the policy is double edged. On the one hand, rolling allocations forward reduces the temptation to start new projects that cannot be funded. It also preserves the continuity of ongoing interventions.

On the other, it perpetuates uncertainty, defers benefits to citizens and concentrates political pressure in the subsequent fiscal year.

Several ministries reported receiving less than N1 trillion for capital projects. This funding came in the first seven months of 2025. This financial squeeze has already stalled timelines for roads, health, and power projects.

The government’s insistence on strict procurement compliance and on cash backing for capital works is overdue. GIFMIS restoration and the issuing of warrants are welcome technical fixes. However, they will not fix systemic calendar mismatches. These mismatches have become routine in Nigeria.

The pattern of late or partial releases, followed by rollovers and ad hoc directives, undermines long term planning. It raises the cost of delivery. It also offers perverse incentives for overstatement of needs at appropriation time.

This episode exposes three core problems that regularisation would address:

• A misaligned budget calendar. Nigeria’s budget process often begins late in the year. It is then extended by mid-year adjustments and carry overs. That creates chronic execution gaps and makes capital budgets effectively multi-year without the safeguards of a formal multi-year framework.

• Weak cash flow discipline. Appropriations mean little if payments do not flow predictably. Cash backing of capital projects is sensible. But cash flow must be managed centrally and transparently so projects are not starved or paid in fits and starts.

• Fragmented project pipelines. The absence of a consolidated medium term capital plan produces a proliferation of half finished projects. Without a clear MTEF aligned pipeline, rollovers merely replicate the same waste and delay into the next year.

If the administration is serious about ending the cycle of deferrals it must adopt a regularised budget rhythm and a set of reforms that are practical, measurable and enforceable:

• Anchor capital spending in a rolling medium term capital plan aligned to the MTEF and published annually. Projects should be selected on readiness and value for money not political immediacy.

• Formalise a calendar that fixes key dates: submission, legislative consideration, appropriation and the start of implementation. The calendar should be binding so rollovers become exceptional not habitual.

• Ringfence capital warrants and link release tranches to project milestones and verified GIFMIS records. Cash backing must be matched to credible procurement documentation before funds flow.

• Strengthen parliamentary and audit oversight to scrutinise carry overs and new project introductions. The legislature should demand evidence of delivery before approving fresh capital ceilings.

• Publish a monthly capital dashboard showing releases, obligations and physical progress by project. Transparency raises political cost for both inaction and misprocurement.

• Incentivise project completion through budgetary penalties for unjustified scope changes and rewards for agencies that meet delivery metrics.

Some of these measures are already contemplated in doctrine. The Budget Office’s MTEF and Fiscal Strategy Paper describe a medium term orientation for spending. However, gaps remain between policy statements and execution outcomes.

That disconnect must be closed through institution building not episodic directives.

There are political economy realities to confront. Weak revenue performance will constrain the pace at which the government can be ambitious. Competing current obligations will also limit the government’s ability to be consistent.

Rolling 70 per cent of capital allocations into the following year can be a pragmatic stop gap. But if the stop gap is not accompanied by calendar reform, it risks institutionalising the very disorder it is meant to correct. It also needs enhanced procurement discipline and better cash management.

For investors and citizens, the message is mixed. The decision reduces the near term risk of project abandonment but raises uncertainty over new investments and timetables.

For public servants it signals a hardening of compliance expectations which is positive if applied evenly.

Parliamentarians and auditors must remain vigilant. They need to ensure that rollovers are not a cover for reallocation to politically favoured projects.

The challenge now is implementation. GIFMIS must remain fully functional. Procurement compliance must be monitored in real time. The Budget Office should publish reconciled, project level performance data.

Above all, the presidency, the legislature, and the civil service must agree on a predictable calendar. This would make the budget a reliable instrument of policy instead of an annual scramble.

If Nigeria is to accelerate infrastructure delivery, it must change its approach to the budget. The budget should not be treated as a provisional exercise. Instead, it should be treated as a timetable. Regularising the national budget cycle is not a technocratic luxury. It is a fiscal necessity.