The disagreement began after Makinde addressed stakeholders at the University of Ibadan on Friday, October 16, during consultations on Oyo State’s proposed 2027 budget. The governor alleged that the Federal Government had withheld dividend proceeds that should have been shared among states, claiming that the funds would not be released until after the 2027 elections. He said Oyo State had already identified projects that could be financed with its expected allocation and questioned why the money had allegedly remained unavailable. Makinde’s remarks presented the issue as a matter of state finances and development planning, but the claim that the money had been deliberately withheld for electoral reasons has not been independently established. No complete reconciliation report, payment schedule or official directive postponing the release of the alleged funds was published alongside his initial remarks. Nevertheless, his allegation introduced a significant question about the accounting of revenue received from one of Nigeria’s major gas export businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Presidency responded on Sunday, October 18, through Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, describing Makinde’s claim as mathematically implausible. Onanuga explained that distributing 250 billion naira to each of Nigeria’s 36 states would require a combined state allocation of 9 trillion naira, excluding the Federal Government, the Federal Capital Territory and local councils. According to the Presidency, states receive 26.72 percent of distributable Federation Account revenue, meaning that generating 9 trillion naira for states alone would require total dividend revenue exceeding 33.68 trillion naira under the formula it cited. The statement argued that Nigeria LNG had never made a dividend payment of that magnitude. Onanuga also stated that the company had paid approximately $21.5 billion in dividends to the Federation over 25 years, with less than $3 billion received since Tinubu took office. The Presidency therefore urged Nigerians to disregard Makinde’s allegation, although its response did not include a detailed breakdown of the recent dividend receipts and allocations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
President Bola Tinubu’s administration has disputed Makinde’s allegation, arguing that the claimed allocations do not correspond with historical Nigeria LNG dividend payments.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Makinde rejected the Presidency’s explanation on October 19, arguing that the central question was not simply the size of a hypothetical dividend payment but whether funds received over a relevant period had been properly reconciled and distributed. His media adviser, Olanrewaju, said the Nigeria Governors’ Forum had engaged a consultant with Federal Government support to examine the history of Nigeria LNG dividend payments. According to the statement, the exercise identified an alleged shortfall of about 9 trillion naira due to states and local governments, and the Federal Government had accepted the findings. Makinde maintained that the reconciliation report remained in the custody of both the Federal Government and the governors’ forum. These assertions have not been independently verified through a publicly available copy of the report. The governor specifically questioned how the nearly $3 billion acknowledged by the Presidency as having been received during Tinubu’s administration was allocated, asking whether states and local governments had obtained their statutory shares and how those shares were calculated. His response shifted attention from the disputed headline figure to the underlying financial records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The controversy involves Nigeria LNG Limited, a major producer and exporter of liquefied natural gas whose dividend payments contribute to Nigeria’s public revenue. The company is jointly owned by Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Shell, TotalEnergies and Eni, with the Nigerian state holding its interest through NNPC Limited. Dividend income from that investment raises questions about the treatment of federally received corporate earnings and the constitutional arrangements governing public revenue. Under Section 162 of the Nigerian Constitution, revenues falling within the Federation Account framework are shared among the three tiers of government according to the applicable allocation system. However, resolving the present dispute requires more than applying a percentage to the figures mentioned in political statements. Investigators would need to establish which dividend payments were actually received, when they were received, how they were recorded, what amounts entered the Federation Account and which distributions were authorised. The distinction between corporate dividends, Federation Account receipts and approved allocations is essential because each represents a different stage in the public finance process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nigeria LNG’s gas processing and export operations on Bonny Island in Rivers State. Dividends from the company are at the centre of the dispute over public revenue distribution.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The disagreement is rooted in a longer history of debates about transparency and the sharing of revenues generated by Nigeria’s natural resources. Nigeria LNG began producing liquefied natural gas in 1999, creating an export industry that has since generated substantial returns for its shareholders. The Presidency’s October 2026 statement places cumulative dividends received by the Federation at approximately $21.5 billion over 25 years. That historical figure is significant because it provides a benchmark against which the size of the alleged 9 trillion naira shortfall can be examined. However, historical dollar payments cannot automatically be compared with a naira denominated reconciliation figure without identifying the relevant dates, exchange rates and accounting treatment. A reconciliation could involve multiple payment periods rather than a single dividend declaration, but the published statements do not establish whether that explains Makinde’s figure. The Presidency’s calculation challenges the plausibility of a one time payment of the amount claimed, while Makinde’s response insists that cumulative receipts and distributions should be examined separately. Both arguments therefore require supporting financial documentation to settle the underlying disagreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The financial implications could be important for state governments already managing demands for roads, healthcare, education, water supply and other public services. Makinde argued that Oyo State had identified development projects that could benefit from the money he believes is owed. If a material allocation were found to have been withheld, the affected governments would have grounds to demand an explanation and seek any appropriate correction. Equally, if the reconciliation established that the proceeds had already been lawfully distributed or that the claimed amount resulted from an accounting error, public budgets would need to reflect that outcome rather than anticipated revenue that may not exist. The distinction matters because states cannot responsibly commit funds to projects based solely on disputed political claims. For residents, the practical issue is whether public revenue is being accurately reported and distributed under the law. Transparent records would help determine the financial position of each tier of government and support credible budget planning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n