FANDE Demands Independent Audit Of Presidential Amnesty Programme Over ₦88.79bn Stipend Disbursements
The management of the Presidential Amnesty Programme, PAP, is facing fresh scrutiny over alleged opacity in the disbursement of billions of naira in stipends, allocation of beneficiary slots, and recognition of former militant camps under the Niger Delta peace initiative.
The Forum Against Niger Delta Exploitation, FANDE, through its spokesman, General Gboloko, has called on the federal government to conduct a comprehensive and independent audit of the programme. The group warned that unresolved allegations of exclusion and unequal access could undermine the peace the PAP was established to preserve.
In a statement made available to newsmen on Sunday, Gboloko said questions surrounding the PAP had become too significant to ignore, given the huge public funds committed to the programme.
*₦88.79bn Disbursed To Camp Representatives Since 2018*
Citing records reportedly obtained from the Federal Government’s GovSpend platform and analysed by _Pointblanknews.com_, Gboloko said at least ₦88.79 billion was disbursed between 2018 and the first half of 2026 to representatives of various former agitator camps for onward distribution as monthly stipends to registered beneficiaries.
The breakdown is:
2018 — ₦3.51 billion
2019 — ₦11.07 billion
2020 — ₦7.10 billion
2021 — ₦15.11 billion
2022 — ₦12.20 billion
2023 — ₦12.52 billion
2024 — ₦15.32 billion
2025 — ₦8.53 billion
First half of 2026 — ₦3.44 billion
Total: ₦88,791,131,022.
Gboloko stressed that the figure, by itself, did not constitute proof of fraud, but argued that the magnitude of the expenditure demanded transparency.
“Who received it? Who were the ultimate beneficiaries? How many people were paid? What was the verification process? Were beneficiaries physically verified? Were deceased, duplicate or inactive beneficiaries removed? Who audited the distributions?” he asked.
He challenged the PAP to publish comprehensive payment schedules showing the camps involved, number of beneficiaries attached to each camp, and amounts disbursed.
*’Why Are Some Camps Marginalised?’*
Gboloko said the reported records also contained the names of former militant leaders and camps, including those associated with former militant leader Ebikabowei Victor Ben, popularly known as Boyloaf. He cautioned, however, that the appearance of any name in expenditure records should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.
“The issue that requires explanation is the criteria used in recognising camps and determining beneficiary allocations,” he said.
“Why are some former leaders associated with multiple recognised camps and substantial beneficiary allocations, while other stakeholders say their own camps and followers were excluded, marginalised or denied meaningful representation?”
He said the PAP should make public the historical records, criteria, and verification procedures used to determine recognised camps and beneficiary numbers.
“If the allocation is legitimate, transparent and objectively determined, the PAP should have no difficulty explaining it,” he added.
*’Peace Programme Must Not Create New Exclusion’*
Gboloko argued that the controversy went beyond individuals or the current leadership of the PAP, noting that the fundamental issue was the structure and accountability framework of the programme.
The Presidential Amnesty Programme was established in 2009 to promote disarmament, demobilisation, rehabilitation and reintegration of former agitators. It helped reduce hostilities and restore stability in the oil-producing region.
However, Gboloko said a programme created to address grievances over marginalisation must not itself be associated with allegations of exclusion.
“For years, critics and stakeholders have raised concerns about the distribution of slots, beneficiary selection, camp recognition and the concentration of opportunities around certain groups,” he said.
He warned that allowing allegations of unequal treatment to persist could create a new class of insiders and outsiders within a programme designed to resolve grievances.
The group also raised concerns over the reported ₦115 billion allocation to the PAP in the 2026 Appropriation Act, a significant increase from the ₦65 billion earmarked in 2024 and 2025.
“The accountability question is no longer historical. It is immediate,” Gboloko said.
“Before another naira disappears into a system surrounded by controversy, the Federal Government should be asking: Where has the money gone? Who benefited? Who was excluded? Who authorised the payments? Who verified the beneficiaries? Who audited the programme?”
The group identified controversy over “slots” as another major concern, with some stakeholders alleging they were shortchanged during the 2009 integration process.
“When a section of a politically sensitive region believes that another section has captured the benefits of a government peace programme, resentment inevitably grows,” Gboloko said.
He warned that perceived exclusion from a peace programme could have serious national security implications and affect crude oil production and government revenue.
Gboloko urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to order a forensic and independent review of the PAP. He called for an audit of all major expenditure, camp allocations, beneficiary databases, payment channels, contracts, and training programmes, as well as independent verification of beneficiaries.
“Where wrongdoing is established, the law should take its course regardless of the name, status or political connections of the person involved,” he said.
FANDE proposed the publication of the PAP beneficiary framework, criteria for camp recognition, slot allocations, number of beneficiaries per camp, amounts disbursed, verification methodology, and audit reports.
“If the PAP is clean, transparency will strengthen it. If mistakes were made, transparency will expose them. If there are abuses, transparency will uncover them,” he said.
“The Presidential Amnesty Programme was created to end a conflict — not to create a new class system,” Gboloko concluded.
“The government must therefore confront the uncomfortable possibility that the PAP requires more than additional funding. It requires institutional surgery.”