Former Army Chief’s remarks revive questions over military procurement, conflicting government explanations and the management of Nigeria’s $1 billion security allocation.
Former Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General Tukur Yusuf Buratai (retd.), has denied receiving or controlling the $1 billion approved for military procurement under former President Muhammadu Buhari, insisting that responsibility for the expenditure rested with the Federal Ministry of Defence. Speaking at the third conference of the Defence Correspondents Association of Nigeria in Abuja on Monday, October 12, 2026, Buratai said the money never passed through his hands or the accounts of the Nigerian Army, Navy and Air Force. His explanation has renewed scrutiny of a controversial security allocation dating back to 2017, particularly because the Buhari presidency stated in July 2019 that none of the original $1 billion had been transferred to the Ministry of Defence or any other ministry. Although the statements were made seven years apart and may refer to different stages of the procurement process, they raise questions about which government institution controlled the funds, when payments were authorised and whether the full expenditure has been independently accounted for.
Buratai, who served as Army Chief from July 2015 until January 2021, made the remarks while delivering a keynote address titled “Beyond Kinetic Warfare: Harnessing Technology and Intelligence-led Operations for Nigeria’s National Security.” He maintained that the National Economic Council approved the $1 billion for defence procurement but that the Ministry of Defence handled the transactions. “Not a single dollar of that fund passed through my hands or through the accounts of the Nigerian Army, Navy, or Air Force,” he said. The retired general rejected allegations that the money had been diverted for political purposes during the 2019 general elections, describing such accusations as malicious and politically motivated. He argued that the ministry should explain how the money was managed and which procurement transactions were undertaken. His comments represent a renewed defence of his record, but they do not independently establish how the entire allocation was spent or whether all purchases were completed.
The controversy began on December 14, 2017, when the National Economic Council, chaired by then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and comprising state governors and senior government officials, supported the proposed withdrawal of $1 billion from Nigeria’s Excess Crude Account to address growing security threats. The account was established to preserve oil earnings above the benchmark price used in government budgeting and provide a financial buffer during periods of declining revenue. At the time, Nigeria was confronting persistent Boko Haram attacks in the northeast, alongside kidnappings, communal violence and other security challenges. The government argued that additional funding was necessary to acquire military equipment and strengthen operations nationwide. Osinbajo subsequently clarified that the expenditure was intended to address security challenges across the country rather than solely the insurgency. However, the decision attracted political and constitutional objections. Former Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose disputed claims that all governors supported the withdrawal and alleged that the money could be diverted to Buhari’s re-election campaign. The administration denied the allegation, maintaining that the proposed expenditure was strictly for national security. Buhari subsequently approved the $1 billion allocation in April 2018, but disagreements over the authorisation and management of the funds continued.
Concerns about the availability of the money became particularly significant in December 2018, when Buratai, still serving as Army Chief, publicly stated that the Nigerian Army had not received its expected share. Speaking to journalists in Maiduguri, he said bureaucratic procedures were delaying access to funding required for military equipment. According to his explanation at the time, the money remained at the Central Bank of Nigeria, and the Ministry of Defence had not yet accessed it. His remarks came shortly after the November 2018 attack on a military installation at Metele in Borno State, where Nigerian soldiers suffered heavy casualties, intensifying concerns about troop protection and the adequacy of military equipment. The former Army Chief’s earlier comments are important because they show that questions about access to the allocation existed while he was still responsible for commanding the Army. They also provide historical context for his latest explanation that the Ministry of Defence subsequently handled the procurement process. What remains unclear from the public statements is whether the funds were later transferred to the ministry, or whether the ministry administered contracts while payments continued to be processed through the Central Bank.
Further details emerged on July 22, 2019, when the Buhari presidency released a financial breakdown of the security allocation. Then presidential spokesman Garba Shehu disclosed that $876,888,428.71 had been committed to military procurement, leaving $123,111,571.29 unspent at the Central Bank. Of the amount committed, $496,374,470 was paid to the United States government for 12 A-29 Super Tucano aircraft intended to strengthen the Nigerian Air Force’s counterinsurgency operations. Another $380,513,958.71 was allocated to critical equipment for the Nigerian Army and Navy, including planned naval helicopter acquisitions. The government presented these figures as evidence that the money had been directed towards defence purchases rather than political activities. Significantly, Shehu also said the entire $1 billion had been domiciled at the Central Bank and that none had been transferred to the Ministry of Defence or any other ministry or agency. That statement does not necessarily contradict Buratai’s 2026 explanation if his reference to the ministry concerns procurement administration rather than direct receipt of the money. However, the different descriptions of institutional responsibility leave an important question unanswered: which authority controlled the transactions, and what official records establish the movement of funds from approval to payment? The presidency’s 2019 disclosure provides a substantial account of the commitments made, but it does not by itself constitute a comprehensive audit confirming the completion of every procurement contract.
The $496.37 million Super Tucano purchase also generated a separate controversy over constitutional procedures and legislative oversight. In April 2018, Buhari informed the National Assembly that he had authorised an advance payment directly to the United States Treasury under a government-to-government procurement arrangement and requested that the expenditure be included in the 2018 Appropriation Bill. Lawmakers questioned why such a substantial financial commitment had been made before obtaining legislative approval, while supporters of the decision argued that the country’s security situation required urgent action. The administration maintained that the aircraft were essential for improving surveillance, precision strikes and military operations against insurgents. The procurement eventually resulted in verifiable deliveries, with the first six Super Tucano aircraft arriving in Nigeria in July 2021 before their formal induction into the Air Force the following month. A World Bank public finance review published in November 2022 also identified approximately $496 million for the aircraft and $380.5 million for other critical military equipment among withdrawals from the Excess Crude Account in 2018. These records demonstrate that substantial military purchases were financed during the period, making it inaccurate to suggest that the entire allocation simply disappeared. Nevertheless, the confirmed delivery of aircraft does not independently account for every contract, associated procurement cost, outstanding balance or item of equipment intended for the other military services.
The controversy returned to public attention in March 2021 after comments by then National Security Adviser, Major General Babagana Monguno (retd.), during an interview with the BBC Hausa Service. Reports of his remarks suggested that newly appointed service chiefs had raised concerns about funds allocated for military equipment and the availability of expected weapons after assuming office. The comments prompted allegations that substantial procurement resources could not be accounted for following the departure of the previous military leadership. Monguno subsequently clarified through his office that he had been quoted out of context and had not categorically accused the former service chiefs of stealing or misappropriating the money. He explained that some procurement arrangements remained incomplete and that major military contracts often involved manufacturing periods, negotiations and lengthy delivery schedules. The presidency also rejected suggestions that the funds had disappeared, while Buratai’s lawyer, Osuagwu Ugochukwu, defended the former Army Chief and insisted that questions regarding procurement expenditure should be addressed to the appropriate government institutions. The exchanges demonstrated how concerns about spending, equipment availability and procurement delays had become intertwined. They also reinforced the importance of distinguishing between money approved for purchases, payments already made and military equipment awaiting delivery.
Beyond the conflicting explanations, the expenditure raised broader questions about constitutional authority and public financial accountability. Section 80 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution sets out rules governing withdrawals from federal public funds and the National Assembly’s role in authorising expenditure, while Section 162 addresses the Federation Account and the distribution of revenue among the different tiers of government. The decision to finance military procurement from Excess Crude Account savings consequently generated debate over whether the necessary constitutional and legislative procedures had been followed. Nigeria’s Public Procurement Act 2007 also contains provisions addressing defence and national security procurement, including circumstances in which specialised approval procedures may apply. However, the existence of such provisions does not eliminate the need to establish the legal basis for withdrawals, the authority for individual payments and compliance with applicable public finance requirements. During the period covered by the original approvals, Mansur Dan-Ali served as Minister of Defence, while the Ministry of Finance and Central Bank were involved in the wider framework governing public funds and financial transactions. Identifying the officials responsible for particular procurement decisions requires evidence from authorisation documents, contracts, payment instructions, delivery records and audit reports. The fact that a ministry or official held responsibility during a particular period does not, without supporting evidence, establish personal involvement in financial misconduct.
At Monday’s conference, Buratai also proposed measures intended to strengthen transparency and public confidence in defence procurement. Among them was the establishment of a Defence Procurement Transparency Portal through which the Ministry of Defence could disclose non-sensitive information about contract categories, contractors and equipment delivery schedules. Such disclosures, he argued, could help clarify how military procurement resources are administered without exposing operational information that could compromise national security. The retired general further recommended quarterly accountability bulletins covering military disciplinary proceedings and investigations into credible allegations of misconduct and human rights abuses. These proposals formed part of his broader call for Nigeria to strengthen its security response through technology, intelligence gathering, interagency cooperation and more effective communication with the public. Information Minister Mohammed Idris, represented at the conference by Voice of Nigeria Director-General Jibrin Ndace, also stressed the importance of intelligence, innovation and coordination in confronting evolving security threats. Although the proposals highlight possible ways to improve oversight, the available reporting does not establish that the proposed procurement transparency portal has been implemented. The broader challenge remains how to provide meaningful public accountability for defence expenditure while safeguarding information that could expose military operations or personnel to danger.
Nearly nine years after the National Economic Council first supported the $1 billion allocation, the available records establish that the Buhari administration authorised significant military procurement, committed substantial sums to equipment purchases and obtained aircraft that were subsequently delivered to the Nigerian Air Force. However, important questions remain concerning the complete procurement inventory, the final status of contracts financed under the programme and the $123.11 million reported as unspent in July 2019. The different explanations offered by officials between 2018 and 2026 also underscore the need for a clear account of how procurement responsibilities were divided among the Central Bank, Ministry of Defence and military services. Buratai’s latest remarks have renewed calls for institutional transparency, but neither his denial of personal control nor the earlier controversies establish that the money was stolen or diverted. A comprehensive reconciliation of the original allocation, supported by official financial statements, contract documentation, payment records and independent audit findings, would provide a more reliable basis for evaluating the expenditure. For a country still confronting major security challenges, the issue extends beyond the conduct of individual former officials. It concerns whether public institutions can demonstrate that extraordinary resources committed to national defence were lawfully authorised, properly managed and translated into the equipment and capabilities intended to protect Nigerian lives.
