Verdict: Misleading – the figures are inadequately sourced and are not comparable on a like-for-like basis
Introduction
A viral claim comparing alleged Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) remittances under Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Goodluck Jonathan, Muhammadu Buhari and Bola Ahmed Tinubu is misleading.
Our review found no reliable primary evidence establishing the $4 billion attributed to Obasanjo, $8 billion attributed to Yar’Adua or $1 billion attributed to Jonathan as NNPC remittances in the form presented.
The claim that Buhari’s government remitted “nothing” in eight years is false. NNPC records show substantial payments to the Federation Account during the period.
The $15.33 billion attributed to Tinubu has a traceable origin, but remains unverified. The Arewa Think Tank, which cited the figure, itself called for independent verification and acknowledged that petroleum-revenue accounting involves multiple revenue streams, deductions and transfers.
More fundamentally, the viral comparison combines figures from different accounting regimes, currencies, periods and categories of petroleum revenue. It therefore creates a presidential ranking that the available evidence does not support.
Claim by claim
| President / claim | What the evidence shows | Rating |
| Obasanjo: $4bn in 8 years | No credible primary source establishes $4bn as NNPC remittances during the Obasanjo administration. Available historical reports include crude-oil earnings and other petroleum-revenue figures, but those are not automatically equivalent to NNPC remittances. | Unverified |
| Yar’Adua: $8bn in 3 years | No credible source was identified establishing $8bn as NNPC remittances during the Yar’Adua administration. The origin of the figure remains unclear. | Unverified |
| Jonathan: $1bn in 5 years | No evidence was found establishing $1bn as NNPC remittances. The better-known petroleum-revenue controversy concerned Sanusi Lamido Sanusi’s allegation of $20bn in unremitted oil revenue. A subsequent PwC review identified amounts requiring reconciliation, but this was not evidence of $1bn in total NNPC remittances. | Unsupported / Misleading |
| Buhari: nothing in 8 years | NNPC records show substantial payments to the Federation Account, including N857.36bn reported for 2017 and more than N1.8tn between 2019 and May 2020. The exact categories changed over time, but “nothing” is inconsistent with NNPC’s own reports. | False as stated |
| Tinubu: $15.33bn in 3.5 years | The figure was publicly cited by the Arewa Think Tank in August 2026. However, the group itself said the figure should be independently verified. No official cumulative statement establishing exactly $15.33bn on the stated basis was identified. | Unverified |
Tinubu: a real increase, but an unproven $15.33bn
The $15.33bn claim should not be dismissed simply because its precise source has not been established.
There is independent evidence of a major increase in NNPC statutory payments during 2026. NNPC reported statutory payments of N7.913tn between January and July 2026.
However, this does not establish the viral claim of $15.33bn over 3.5 years.
The $15.33bn figure originated in an August 2026 statement by the Arewa Think Tank. Importantly, the organisation itself acknowledged that the figure required independent verification and called for the supporting revenue information to be made available for public scrutiny.
Documented increase in remittances ≠ verification of the $15.33bn claim.
What changed in February 2026?
One reason NNPC’s 2026 figures increased sharply is a major change in the treatment of petroleum revenues.
President Tinubu’s Executive Order 9 of 2026, dated February 13, directed that petroleum revenues due to the Federation should flow directly into the Federation Account.
The order removed NNPC’s entitlement to collect the 30% management fee on profit oil and profit gas and the 30% Frontier Exploration Fund deduction. It also directed contractors under production-sharing arrangements to make specified payments directly to the Federation Account.
This is important when interpreting the 2026 figures. A large increase in payments after February 2026 does not necessarily mean that an equivalent amount represents newly generated petroleum revenue. Part of the increase reflects a change in how revenue is collected, deducted, and transferred.
The Buhari “nothing remitted” claim
The claim that Buhari’s administration remitted nothing to the Federation Account is contradicted by NNPC’s own historical reporting.
NNPC reported N857.36bn in remittances in 2017 and more than N1.8tn in payments to the Federation Account between 2019 and May 2020.
The precise accounting treatment of those payments matters. Some historical NNPC reports distinguished between money paid into the Federation Account and funds transferred for government-priority projects.
Consequently, the evidence does not justify simply adding every historical NNPC payment together and comparing the resulting naira figure with modern statutory remittances.
But it does establish one thing conclusively: “Nothing” is false as a description of NNPC payments during the Buhari years.
Jonathan and the $20bn controversy
The Jonathan-era claim also appears to confuse different concepts.
Then-CBN governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi alleged that about $20bn in oil revenue had not been properly remitted.
That was a dispute about alleged unremitted revenue, not evidence that NNPC remitted only $1bn during Jonathan’s presidency.
A subsequent PwC review examined the accounts and identified amounts requiring reconciliation and refund. The review therefore cannot legitimately be converted into a presidential “$1bn remittance” figure.
The viral claim appears to collapse different financial concepts into a single number.
The biggest problem: the comparison is not like-for-like
The central problem with the viral table is methodological.
It presents the figures as though they represent the same thing: “How much did NNPC remit under each president?” The available evidence does not support that assumption.
1. The institutional framework changed.
The petroleum-revenue system changed substantially following the Petroleum Industry Act and the transformation of the former NNPC into NNPC Limited. Revenue can now involve NNPC Limited, NUPRC, FIRS, NMDPRA and the Federation Account.
2. NNPC is not the same institution in every period.
The former Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation operated under a substantially different statutory and accounting framework from today’s NNPC Limited.
3. The currency changed dramatically.
The older claims are expressed in US dollars, while recent official reports are predominantly expressed in Naira. Nigeria’s exchange-rate regime and the value of the Naira changed substantially during the period covered.
4. Deductions changed.
Historical NNPC arrangements permitted various deductions and transfers before revenue reached the Federation Account. Executive Order 9 changed this treatment in 2026 by eliminating or redirecting certain deductions.
A useful independent benchmark
RMAFC provides particularly useful evidence of why the viral comparison should be treated cautiously.
For July–December 2023, RMAFC reported total gross Federation Account inflows of N7.314tn.
During that period:
• NNPC Limited remitted N874.645bn;
• NUPRC remitted N1.569tn;
• FIRS remitted N3.654tn; and
• Nigeria Customs Service remitted N1.217tn.
RMAFC also reported that NNPC’s remittance was zero during January–June 2023.
These figures demonstrate that “NNPC remittance” is only one component of the broader Federation Account revenue picture.
What about the $42.37bn under-remittance allegation?
This should also be kept separate from the viral presidential table.
There have been separate allegations concerning billions of dollars and Naira allegedly owed or not properly remitted to the Federation Account.
Such allegations are important because they demonstrate that Nigeria has had longstanding problems involving petroleum-revenue reconciliation.
But an allegation of under-remittance should not be presented as proof that a particular president personally withheld that money.
It is a matter requiring reconciliation between NNPC, government agencies, the Federation Account and other relevant institutions.
Our assessment
The viral post contains a mixture of unsupported historical numbers, a demonstrably false Buhari claim and an unverified Tinubu figure.
More importantly, it gives the impression that all five numbers represent the same financial metric. They do not.
The evidence shows that Nigeria’s petroleum-revenue architecture changed substantially over the period, including changes in NNPC’s legal status; the role of NUPRC and other agencies; deductions and management fees; the treatment of production-sharing-contract revenues; exchange rates; petroleum-sector legislation; and the definition and routing of revenues into the Federation Account.
The Tinubu administration can legitimately point to a substantial increase in reported NNPC statutory payments in 2026. NNPC reported N7.913tn between January and July alone.
But that evidence does not independently prove the viral $15.33bn figure.
Likewise, evidence of NNPC payments during the Buhari administration makes the claim that “nothing” was remitted untenable.
Bottom line
The viral comparison should not be used as evidence that one Nigerian president remitted more petroleum revenue than another.
The individual claims require separate verification, and the available evidence does not establish the figures on a common accounting basis.
The more accurate conclusion is:
Nigeria’s petroleum-revenue remittance system has changed significantly across administrations. Without a common methodology covering the same revenue streams, deductions, institutions, exchange-rate treatment and periods, ranking presidents by “NNPC remittances” produces a misleading comparison.
How we verified
For this fact-check, the relevant evidence base includes:
• NNPC/NNPCL monthly and performance reports;
• Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) data;
• Federation Account records;
• Federal Government statements on Executive Order 9;
• reports concerning historical NNPC remittances;
• petroleum-sector revenue and audit records; and
• independent reporting on the disputed figures.
ClarityNewsNG’s assessment: MISLEADING. The viral comparison contains claims that are unsupported or false as stated, while its central presidential comparison is not based on a consistent financial metric.
Discover more from CLARITYNEWSNG
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
