The recent reassignments of duties involving the Minister of Finance, Wale Edun and the Minister of State in the ministry, Doris Uzoka-Anite, may create some dissonance in the management of the country’s public finance. This may be appropriately worrisome to many, especially to economists, policymakers, researchers and other domestic and external stakeholders.

The reported variance in the figures publicly presented by Wale Edun on the state of the country’s collected revenues in 2025 and that of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is found to be at the root of this unwholesome development. The President, at a stakeholder meeting of the Buhari Organisation, which had visited him at the Presidential Villa in Abuja, declared that Nigeria had met its revenue target for 2025 ahead of schedule.

President Tinubu had said the government would no longer rely on borrowing to fund its budget and that his administration’s non-oil revenue drive had yielded enough to meet this year’s projections by August, reducing Nigeria’s dependence on external loans. This was a remark that varied with the account of his Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Wale Edun who, during an interactive session with the House of Representatives Committees on Finance and National Planning to discuss the 2026–2028 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and Fiscal Strategy Paper (FSP), said the federal government recorded a wide revenue shortfall in the 2025 fiscal year, raising fresh concerns about the sustainability of Nigeria’s public finances.

He had stated that the federal government had projected N40.8 trillion in revenue for 2025 to finance the N54.9 trillion “budget of restoration,” which was designed to stabilise the economy, secure peace, and rebuild prosperity; and that the actual revenue performance was significantly short of expectations, with total inflows for the year projected to close at about N10.7 trillion. He had further stated that “the current trajectory indicates that federal revenues for the full year will likely end at around N10.7 trillion, compared with the N40.8 trillion that was projected.”

This is a clear case of the contradictions in economic or technical reportage. The embarrassment this might have caused the administration is fingered as the possible reason the government had to make some sweeping changes in the administration of public finance in the country. Accordingly, there was a hurried internal reorganisation of the country’s fiscal architecture, raising obvious concerns about how this affects the country’s public financial management. The reorganisation, which came by a presidential memo early in December 2025, indicated that key revenue-generation and cash management functions were removed from Wale Edun, the substantive Minister of Finance, to Doris Uzoka-Anite, the Minister of State.

Stakeholders interpret this action as potentially curtailing Wale Edun’s oversight of revenues, debt and payments, with more powers given to the Minister of State over and above the substantive Minister. It has equally set tongues wagging. More concerning are emerging doubts as to how seamless operations of the economic governance structure can take place, especially at this time when the economy has experienced some form of stabilisation and is trying to transition to enhancing economic growth. This is also a time when the federal government is operating three budgets simultaneously.

The re-organisation seems like the case of the tail wagging the dog, instead of the other way around, with the minister of state calling the shots and taking the tough decisions on the management of the country’s public finance, while the substantive minister is merely relegated to the background, at least in the meantime. This re-organisation has been described as a manifestation of some measure of friction within the bureaucracy, which is considered counterproductive and which works against the delivery of good governance to the ordinary Nigerian. There is a need for the issue to be resolved quickly, with all parties making amends as necessary in harmonising political positions with the economic. The reaction of the Presidency has some implications for the Nigerian economy.

First, it could trigger a degree of mistrust between the government and the general public. There could be a perception of a degree of opaqueness of any figures emanating from the administration. People would want to know whether the figures being churned out are merely for political consideration, particularly with the 2027 general elections around the corner, or are verified economic facts. Already, the revision of previously released inflation figures by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) casts doubts on the authenticity of data released by the government. The earlier expressed doubts on the authenticity of the inflation figure have thus been vindicated. This is not good for the government as it creates a trust deficit between the authorities and the people. As much as the government wants to demonstrate that it is doing well in its economic governance programmes, it needs to ensure that the public does not perceive its presentation as fraudulent.

Second, for economic research, which of the data emanating from the government can be trusted? It implies that empirical investigation on the economy would have little value because it is based on questionable data.

Third, if the substantive minister is, for any reason, found wanting in the performance of his core duty, why not reassign him to another ministry where he can breathe some fresh air and comport himself better, having learnt some bitter lessons as to how technocrats need to work with hardcore politicians.

In that case, the Minister assigned to carry out his duty may be accorded full ministerial power. If Mr Edun is to remain in the finance ministry, there may be a need for him to be reinstated to his original status. Given his experience as finance commissioner in Lagos State when the President was the state governor, there is enough ground to remedy the issue.