The IMF report and the politics of opacity

The IMF Report and the Politics of Opacity

By Babayola M. Toungo

The debate ignited by the IMF’s latest assessment of Nigeria’s public finances is far bigger than the figure of ₦8.8 trillion. Numbers shock the public, but ideas shape nations. The real issue is not merely that public expenditure equivalent to about two per cent of Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product was reportedly executed outside recent official budget documents. The real issue is what such a revelation says about the philosophy of governance that has taken root in Nigeria.

Government exists because citizens surrender certain freedoms in exchange for order, security, and accountable administration. Taxes are collected, resources are managed, and budgets are approved because democratic societies insist that public money belongs to the public. Governments merely hold those resources in trust. That trust is the moral foundation of democracy.
The annual budget is therefore more than an accounting exercise. It is the social contract translated into numbers. It is the instrument through which citizens are told how their money will be raised, how it will be spent, who will supervise it, and by what authority expenditures will be made. Once spending migrates outside that constitutional framework – even where there may be legal explanations -it inevitably raises profound questions about transparency, parliamentary oversight, and democratic accountability.

This is precisely why the IMF’s observation deserves serious attention. The Fund’s concern was not simply statistical. It warned that incomplete fiscal reporting understates the true fiscal position of government, complicates macroeconomic management, and weakens oversight of procurement and public finance. Those concerns strike at the heart of constitutional governance. Every democracy rests upon one elementary principle: no public expenditure should escape public accountability. That principle explains why constitutions create legislatures. It explains why budgets are debated. It explains why appropriations are passed. It explains why auditors-general exist. It explains why public accounts committees conduct investigations.

The budget is the constitutional chain that binds political power to democratic accountability. The moment significant public expenditure falls outside that chain, the burden shifts to those exercising executive authority to explain – not because every off-budget expenditure is unlawful, but because every departure from ordinary budgetary transparency requires extraordinary public justification. Leadership accountability begins where legal compliance ends.
A government may satisfy the minimum legal requirements of public finance, yet still fall short of the higher democratic obligation of openness. Democracy does not ask merely, “Was it legal?” It also asks, “Was it transparent? Was Parliament fully informed? Could citizens reasonably understand how public resources were committed?” These are not technical questions. They are political questions. They are constitutional questions. Above all, they are moral questions.

The IMF report therefore exposes a deeper problem than fiscal reporting. It exposes a governing culture in which executive efficiency increasingly appears to take precedence over democratic accountability. This tendency is not unique to Nigeria. Around the world, executives often argue that extraordinary economic conditions require extraordinary flexibility. The temptation is always the same: bypass cumbersome procedures in the name of urgency, centralise decisions in the name of efficiency, and reduce scrutiny in the name of expediency.

History teaches, however, that democracies are rarely weakened by a single spectacular abuse of power. They are weakened gradually when exceptional practices become normal, when transparency becomes negotiable, and when accountability is treated as an administrative inconvenience rather than a constitutional obligation. Nigeria cannot afford such a trajectory.

The country’s democratic challenge is no longer simply corruption in its traditional sense. Corruption is the private misuse of public office for private gain. The larger danger today is institutional opacity – the steady expansion of areas of governance that become increasingly difficult for citizens, legislators, auditors, civil society, and even independent experts to scrutinise.

Opacity is corruption’s closest ally. Corruption flourishes where scrutiny is weak. Waste flourishes where transparency is limited. Abuse flourishes where accountability is delayed. This is why leadership matters.

Leadership is not measured merely by the number of roads constructed, bridges commissioned, or macroeconomic reforms announced. Leadership is ultimately measured by whether those achievements strengthen or weaken the institutions through which democratic accountability is exercised. A government confident in its stewardship should have nothing to fear from scrutiny. Transparency is not an obstacle to reform; it is what gives reform democratic legitimacy. Indeed, governments frequently ask citizens to endure hardship in the name of fiscal discipline. Subsidies are removed. Taxes are increased. Public spending is rationalised. Citizens are told that sacrifice today will produce prosperity tomorrow. Such appeals impose a reciprocal obligation on government.

If citizens are expected to account for every naira they earn through taxation, government must be prepared to account for every naira it spends through governance. That is the essence of leadership accountability.

Ultimately, the IMF report should not become another partisan football, reduced to accusations and counter-accusations. It should instead provoke a national conversation about fiscal transparency, constitutional oversight, and the ethical obligations of those entrusted with public resources.

The issue before Nigeria is larger than ₦8.8 trillion. It is whether democratic accountability remains the organising principle of governance or whether transparency has become optional whenever power finds accountability inconvenient. That is the question the IMF has inadvertently placed before the nation.

How Nigeria answers it will say much about the future of its democracy.