At the centre of the disagreement are two different claims: the Presidency insists that Makinde’s allegation of ₦250 billion in withheld dividends for each state is financially implausible, while the governor’s camp maintains that a reconciliation exercise identified an alleged ₦9 trillion shortfall involving states and local governments.
Both sides have called for public scrutiny, but they disagree sharply over whether the available figures support the governor’s allegation.
Why the NLNG dividend controversy erupted
According to the account provided, the governor alleged that each state was entitled to ₦250 billion from an NLNG dividend windfall but that the Federal Government had indicated the money would not be released until after the 2027 elections.
Makinde said Oyo State had already identified projects that could benefit from the anticipated funds, questioning why their release would be delayed until after the election period.
President Bola Tinubu’s administration, through its Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, described the allegation as false and urged Nigerians to disregard it.
The Presidency argued that the amount being discussed did not align with its account of NLNG’s cumulative dividend payments to the federation.
Presidency challenges the ₦250 billion-per-state figure
The Federal Government’s response focused largely on the arithmetic behind Makinde’s claim.
The Presidency further cited the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) revenue-sharing formula, stating that states receive 26.72 per cent of distributable Federation Account revenue.
Based on that percentage, it argued that the states’ combined share of ₦9 trillion would require total distributable revenue of approximately ₦33.68 trillion, which it associated with roughly $25 billion.
Onanuga said NLNG had never paid $25 billion in dividends to the Federation Account in a single payout. He added that the company had paid approximately $21.5 billion in dividends to the federation over 25 years, with less than $3 billion realised since Tinubu assumed office.
The Presidency therefore argued that a single payment on the scale implied by Makinde’s allegation would exceed the cumulative dividend figure it cited.
However, the figures presented by the Presidency do not, on their own, establish whether a separate reconciliation exercise identified an outstanding balance or whether a specific payment was approved and remains undistributed. Those questions require examination of the relevant financial records.
Makinde’s camp says the dispute is about distribution, not lifetime totals
Makinde’s media team rejected the Presidency’s response, arguing that it failed to address the specific financial reconciliation at the heart of the allegation.
According to the statement, the exercise identified an alleged shortfall of about ₦9 trillion involving states and local governments. The governor’s camp also claimed that the Federal Government had accepted the findings.
The team said the report remained in the custody of both the Federal Government and the NGF.
These assertions have not been independently established by the material available for this report. In particular, the reconciliation report, its methodology and any formal acceptance of its findings would need to be examined to determine the precise nature of the alleged shortfall.
Makinde’s representatives also questioned the Presidency’s reference to approximately $21.5 billion in cumulative dividend payments, saying a historical total cannot establish how much was received during a particular period or whether the appropriate beneficiaries received their allocations.
They demanded answers to three central questions:
- How much did NLNG pay in dividends during the period under discussion?
- How much of that money was credited to the Federation Account and approved for distribution?
- How much was allocated to states and local governments, and what amounts were actually paid?
The governor’s camp maintained that the Federal Government should publish the relevant records instead of relying on cumulative figures to dismiss the allegation.
Campaign organisation intensifies political confrontation
The Makinde-Daura Presidential Campaign Organisation also rejected the Presidency’s denial, accusing the administration of avoiding the substantive issues raised by the governor.
In a statement signed by its Director of Communications, Richard Nnanna Ihediwa, the campaign challenged President Tinubu’s administration to state directly whether the dividends in question had been paid to the states.
The organisation called for the publication of NLNG dividend receipts, relevant FAAC decisions and official communications showing the amounts received, the sums approved for distribution and the timing of payments.
It argued that the existence of large cumulative dividend payments does not prove that every amount due to the states was distributed correctly.
The campaign also questioned whether the Federal Government had the constitutional authority to withhold funds accruing to states, framing the dispute as an issue of fiscal accountability and the relationship between the federal and state governments.
The Presidency, meanwhile, criticised Makinde’s public statements, linking the allegation to his presidential ambition and accusing him of making misleading claims.
Makinde’s camp responded by defending his credibility and describing the Presidency’s remarks as an attempt to distract from the financial questions.
The exchange has consequently developed into both a dispute over public revenue and a political confrontation involving a sitting governor who intends to challenge for the presidency in 2027.
What the figures do — and do not — establish
Understanding the controversy requires separating three financial questions that are being discussed together.
First, there is NLNG’s total dividend history. The Presidency’s cited figure of approximately $21.5 billion relates to payments over 25 years, according to its statement. That is a cumulative figure rather than the amount attributable to a single financial period.
Second, there is the amount available for distribution. Money paid by a company, money credited to the Federation Account and money approved for distribution are related but distinct accounting stages. Establishing the amount due to each tier of government requires records showing how the relevant receipts were treated.
Third, there is the amount actually transferred. Even if a reconciliation identifies a discrepancy, the report must clarify whether it concerns unpaid dividends, an allocation shortfall, a timing difference, a disputed calculation or another accounting issue.
These distinctions matter because the Presidency’s argument about the scale of a hypothetical single payout does not independently resolve every possible question about a cumulative or period-specific shortfall. Equally, the governor’s camp’s assertion that a reconciliation identified ₦9 trillion does not, without the underlying documentation, establish that the entire sum is owed or has been withheld.
There is also an important difference between the reported ₦250 billion-per-state claim and the alleged ₦9 trillion reconciliation shortfall. The two figures should not automatically be treated as descriptions of the same transaction until the parties clarify their relationship.
Why the dispute matters to states and local governments
The controversy goes beyond the political exchanges between Makinde and the Presidency.
State governments depend on their share of Federation Account revenue to fund public services, infrastructure, healthcare, education and other development priorities. If a verified allocation remains unpaid, the delay could affect project planning and budget implementation.
For Oyo State, Makinde said the anticipated funds had been earmarked for projects intended to expand the state’s economy. Whether the money was formally approved, and whether the alleged delay affected specific projects, remains to be established.
For other states and local governments, the wider concern is whether revenue-sharing arrangements are being implemented transparently and consistently.
The disagreement also highlights the importance of making intergovernmental financial information accessible to the public. Citizens need to be able to distinguish between money announced, money received, money approved for sharing and money actually paid to beneficiaries.
Without that distinction, large figures can become political talking points without providing a complete picture of government finances.
What happens next?
The most decisive development would be the publication and examination of the documents cited by the governor’s camp and the financial records referenced by the Presidency.
A transparent reconciliation should establish:
- The relevant NLNG dividend payment dates and amounts.
- The sums credited to the Federation Account during the period in question.
- The applicable FAAC decisions and revenue-sharing calculations.
- The amounts approved for each tier of government.
- The amounts actually transferred, including any outstanding balances and explanations for discrepancies.
The Nigeria Governors’ Forum could also help clarify the status of the reconciliation report, including whether it was formally adopted, whether the Federal Government accepted its findings and what the alleged shortfall represents.
Until these details are made available and independently assessed, neither the Presidency’s denial nor the governor’s allegation should be treated as a complete resolution of the dispute.
The immediate issue is therefore not simply whether ₦250 billion per state is plausible as a single distribution. It is whether the relevant financial records can establish what was received, what was due and what was paid.
Conclusion
The confrontation between the Presidency and Seyi Makinde over NLNG dividends has exposed a major disagreement over revenue accounting, transparency and the distribution of public funds.
The Federal Government says the figures behind the governor’s claim do not withstand scrutiny, citing NLNG’s cumulative dividend history and the implications of the proposed allocation. Makinde’s camp insists that a reconciliation exercise identified an alleged ₦9 trillion shortfall and says the Presidency has yet to explain the distribution of the money.
The next stage of the dispute will depend on documentary evidence rather than political accusations. Publication of the relevant receipts, reconciliation report, FAAC decisions and payment records would give Nigerians a clearer basis for assessing the competing claims.
For now, the alleged shortfall remains disputed, and the central questions about the specific amounts received, approved and distributed remain unanswered in the information available for this report.
Kindly Share:
Discover more from LMSINT MEDIA
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.