Leaked Nigerian Federal Executive Council Documents Reveal Controversial $2.998billion Rail Plan, Raise Questions Over Finance Ministry’s Role

Leaked Nigerian Federal Executive Council Documents Reveal Controversial $2.998billion Rail Plan, Raise Questions Over Finance Ministry’s Role

Some Federal Executive Council documents have revealed how the Nigerian government approved contracts worth US$2.998 billion for three urban rail projects.

The approvals have, however, raised serious questions over the decision to place the projects under the Ministry of Finance Incorporated, MOFI, instead of the Federal Ministry of Transportation.

The documents dated May 5, 2026 indicate that the approvals were granted during the Federal Executive Council meeting of April 30, 2026.

They were subsequently transmitted by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation to the Ministry of Finance for implementation.

he projects approved are the Lagos Green Line Railway Phase 1A, the Kano Metro Rail Project and the Kaduna State Light Rail Project. The three projects have a combined contract value of US$2.998 billion, inclusive of 7.5 per cent VAT.

According to the documents, the Lagos Green Line Phase 1A was awarded to China Harbour Engineering Company, Nigeria Limited JV for US$1.42 billion. Mota Engil Nigeria Limited was awarded the Kano Metro Rail Project valued at US$859.7 million and the Kaduna State Light Rail Project worth US$883.4 million.

All three projects are expected to be completed within 48 months.

Speaking with State House corres ondents after the weekly FEC meeting in Abuja on Thursday, April 30, Taiwo Oyedele, the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, had said the approvals align with the Federal Government’s commitment to infrastructure that drives productivity, economic growth, and improved quality of life.

“Council today approved the award of contracts for three transformative rail projects. One is the Lagos Green Line Rail Project, Phase One,” the minister said.

“The second is the Kano State Metro City Rail Project. And the third is the Kaduna State Light Rail Project.”

However, beyond the size of the contracts, the documents reveal an unusual governance structure that has triggered concerns among industry stakeholders.

Instead of the Federal Ministry of Transportation taking the lead on the projects, the documents assign MOFI the role of project sponsor on behalf of the Federal Government, with responsibility for project management and fund management.

The approvals also authorise MOFI to receive N200million annually for each project during the construction period as project management fees.

In addition, MOFI is to earn one per cent of the Federal Government’s counterpart funding for each project, with the fees embedded in the approved project costs.

The approval extends the same arrangement to future infrastructure projects undertaken under the Renewed Hope Programme where MOFI serves in a similar capacity.

Civil society activists said the arrangement raises questions over the legal framework under which MOFI, whose primary mandate is managing Federal Government investments and assets is assuming responsibilities traditionally performed by the Federal Ministry of Transportation and its specialised agencies.

There is no indication in the leaked documents that the Ministry of Transportation initiated the projects or that its statutory role in railway development was retained.

The documents also show that the Nigerian Government approved counterpart funding of N196 billion for the Lagos Green Line, N150 billion for the Kano Metro, and N100 billion for the Kaduna Light Rail Project.

The funds are to be channeled through the Renewed Hope Infrastructure Development Fund, RHIDF, managed by MOFI under Oyedele.

Another issue emerging from the leaked documents is the repeated reference to the RHIDF as the vehicle through which the Federal Government’s counterpart funding for the projects would be released.

This raises significant legal and constitutional questions.

Nigeria’s public finance architecture is governed by the 1999 Constitution as amended, the Finance (Control and Management) Act and the Public Finance Management framework. All of these establish the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation and other funds created by law. In practice, government revenues are also managed through the Treasury Single Account, TSA policy, introduced to consolidate public funds and improve transparency.

Public finance experts say where large sums of public money are administered through special purpose funds, there should be clear legal authority, transparent governance arrangements and robust parliamentary oversight.

Given the scale of the proposed expenditure, almost US$3 billion in external financing alongside ₦446 billion in Federal counterpart funding, the Government may need to clarify whether the RHIDF is a statutory fund created by law.

It also needs to explain how it interfaces with existing constitutional provisions governing public funds, and what oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability.

Another issue attracting attention is the scale of the proposed investment.

The Lagos Green Line Phase 1A is understood to cover approximately 23 kilometres. This has prompted questions about how the project cost was determined and whether it compares favourably with similar rail developments in Nigeria and elsewhere.

Experts say determining value for money would require access to detailed engineering estimates, feasibility studies, financing arrangements, and cost breakdowns. None of these are contained in the leaked documents. However, they argued that the cost of similar projects is cheaper in Europe and Asia.

The approvals also provide no information on whether Environmental Impact Assessments were conducted before the projects were approved. It is also unclear whether the reports have been made public as required under environmental regulations.

Similarly, the documents do not indicate whether the contracts were awarded through open competitive bidding or under another procurement framework. While the Bureau of Public Procurement, BPP, is shown to have reviewed the project costs, the documents do not disclose the procurement process that produced thecontractors.

The approvals come against the backdrop of lingering uncertainty over the rehabilitation of the Port Harcourt–Maiduguri Eastern Railway, a strategic national corridor expected to connect 16 states.

Industry sources have repeatedly stated that the project requires the Federal Government to provide about 15 per cent counterpart funding to unlock approximately US$3 billion in external financing.

Despite the strategic importance of that railway, the counterpart funding has reportedly not been released.

The apparent willingness to commit substantial public resources to new urban rail projects while an existing national railway project remains stalled is likely to attract scrutiny from transport experts and fiscal policy analysts.

The leaked documents also raise broader questions about institutional accountability.

“Why is MOFI, rather than the Ministry of Transportation, leading railway development? What legal instrument authorises the arrangement? Who prepared the feasibility studies? Who is supervising the projects? Were Environmental Impact Assessments completed?

How were the project costs determined? Were the contracts competitively procured? Has the proposed external borrowing received all necessary approvals?,” an expert told SaharaReporters while questioning the processes.

As of the time of filing this report, the Presidency, the Ministry of Finance, MOFI, the Federal Ministry of Transportation and the Bureau of Public Procurement had not publicly explained the governance structure outlined in the leaked documents

The latest revelations come amid growing questions over transparency in public expenditure.

They follow recent investigations into the inclusion of more than N1.3 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Framework for the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, an entity whose legal status, statutory mandate and operational existence have come under public scrutiny.