Tinubu’s aide: Comparing Presidential Air Fleet to Defence Budget Wrong

Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Economic Affairs, Tope Fasua, on Wednesday defended expenditure on the Presidential Air Fleet, saying it is wrong to compare its funding with capital allocations for the Ministry of Defence. Daily Trust had reported how amid the escalating security crisis across Nigeria, the Nigerian Army and the Nigerian Air […]

Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Economic Affairs, Tope Fasua, on Wednesday defended expenditure on the Presidential Air Fleet, saying it is wrong to compare its funding with capital allocations for the Ministry of Defence.

Daily Trust had reported how amid the escalating security crisis across Nigeria, the Nigerian Army and the Nigerian Air Force were grappling with gross underfunding, particularly in the acquisition of security and defence equipment.

Details of the 2025 budget performance posted on the federal government’s Open Treasury Portal showed that of the N20.56bn budgeted by the Nigerian Army for the purchase of security equipment, only N1.46bn, representing 7.11%, was disbursed as of December 31, 2025.

However, N20.27bn was disbursed for running of the presidential air fleet, marking 97.76% implementation out of the N20.74bn budgeted.

Speaking on the issue during an interview with Channels TV, Fasua said the claim that the presidential fleet was being prioritised over defence spending stemmed from a misunderstanding of how government budgeting works.

According to him, spending on the Presidential Air Fleet largely falls under recurrent expenditure, covering aircraft fueling, servicing, repairs, crew payments and operational costs, while procurement of military hardware is classified as capital spending.

“You cannot compare recurrent spending with capital spending. They are not the same thing,” Fasua said.

He argued that capital expenditure in the defence sector had been affected by budget rollovers arising from fiscal transition challenges and overlapping implementation cycles inherited over the years.

According to him, some of the figures being cited for 2025 reflected releases tied to the 2024 capital budget, owing to the effort to ensure one budget cycle is substantially completed before another takes full effect.

“There was an overlap. We are trying to get to a point where only one budget is running. It is improving,” he said.

Fasua noted that while the arrangement was not yet perfect, the government had moved from a situation where multiple budgets were running simultaneously to a more orderly structure that, he said, should eventually strengthen accountability and implementation.

“What is more important is not only January to December budgeting as an aesthetic, but that what is spent is accounted for and gets to the people,” he added.

Pressed on whether his argument suggested the presidential fleet was more important than critical defence needs, especially amid concerns over insecurity and reports of inadequate equipment for troops, Fasua rejected the premise.

“That is an illogical question. You are comparing different categories of expenditure,” he said.

He maintained that operational costs tied to aircraft safety could not simply be suspended.

“You cannot stop fueling an aircraft mid air. You cannot fail to service an aircraft. You cannot fail to pay the pilot and the crew,” he said.

Fasua also dismissed suggestions that the defence sector was being starved of funds, insisting no one had shown the sector had been abandoned.

“Nobody has said the defence sector has not been funded. I am saying there was a rollover,” he said.

The exchange followed persistent public scrutiny over government spending priorities, especially amid growing concern about security funding after the death of senior military officers in frontline operations.

The interviewer had questioned whether continued releases for the presidential fleet could be justified while communities facing attacks continued to raise concerns over military capacity and equipment.

But Fasua insisted the issue should not be reduced to a simplistic comparison, arguing that recurrent obligations and capital procurement follow different rules and timelines within public finance management.