13% derivation fund executive order
A Niger Delta civil society coalition has written to President Bola Tinubu, urging him to issue an executive order on the implementation of the 13% derivation fund, arguing that oil- and gas-producing communities are being short-changed under current arrangements.
The group, identified as the Niger Delta Civil Society Forum (NDCSF), said the executive order would compel what it described as a “legal, constitutional, and people-oriented” application of the derivation principle, with direct benefits for host communities in the Niger Delta. 
In its public statement, the forum anchored its demand on Section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that the derivation principle shall be “not less than thirteen per cent of the revenue accruing to the Federation Account from any natural resources.” 
What the group is asking Tinubu to do
According to reports, the NDCSF wants Tinubu to issue an executive order that clarifies how the 13% derivation fund should be applied, and to ensure that the funds translate into measurable development outcomes in oil-producing areas.
The coalition’s argument is that the current practice has created a disconnect between what communities endure and what they receive, and that a stronger, clearer executive directive could compel better compliance and accountability around the derivation framework. 
In practical terms, the call is not just “pay derivation.” It is a push for an executive order that would tighten enforcement, define responsibilities, and strengthen structures around how derivation-linked resources serve the people in producing areas. 
The constitutional hook: why 13% derivation matters
Nigeria’s derivation principle is one of the most sensitive issues in fiscal federalism. The Constitution’s Section 162(2) establishes that the derivation share must be not less than 13% of revenue from natural resources paid into the Federation Account. 
That provision has historically been central to the Niger Delta’s long-running argument: producing regions should not bear the environmental and social costs of extraction while receiving a marginal share of the proceeds.
This is the foundation of the group’s demand for a 13% derivation fund executive order that, in their view, would end what they called constitutional overreach and restore clarity to implementation. 
Why this demand is resurfacing now
The timing is not random.
On February 19, 2026, the Presidency announced that Tinubu signed an executive order aimed at direct remittance of oil and gas revenues to the Federation Account, with an intent to curb leakages and eliminate duplicative deductions in the sector. 
That executive action has triggered fresh agitation from interest groups who now see an opening for additional executive directives to address other oil-revenue related issues, including derivation.
In other words, the NDCSF is pushing a simple political logic: if an executive order can be used to tighten upstream revenue remittance, then an executive order can also be used to strengthen derivation compliance and transparency. 
The big question: states vs communities
https://ogelenews.ng/13-derivation-fund-executive-order-tinubu
Here is where the debate gets complicated.
Derivation is typically discussed in the context of allocations to oil-producing states. For example, Nigeria’s derivation payments have featured prominently in FAAC distribution discussions, with oil-producing states receiving derivation revenues as part of the Federation Account allocation structure. 
But the NDCSF’s framing leans into host communities, arguing that derivation should translate into direct, practical impact where oil and gas activity happens, not just increase state receipts without visible development outcomes.
This is also why the call for a 13% derivation fund executive order is politically sensitive: it touches on governance, transparency, and the old Niger Delta complaint that “the money comes, but the people still suffer.”
What critics are likely to say
Even before government responds, two counter-arguments will likely surface:
1. Executive orders cannot override the Constitution or existing revenue allocation laws. An EO can guide implementation, but it cannot rewrite constitutional fiscal arrangements.
2. The 13% derivation is not a “new” entitlement; the challenge is often about accountability and how state-level institutions deploy the funds for development.
That’s why any 13% derivation fund executive order, if pursued, would have to be carefully drafted to avoid a legal collision while still creating measurable transparency, auditing, and community-impact mechanisms.
What to watch next
Three things will tell Nigerians whether this becomes real policy or just another public advocacy push:
• Whether the Presidency acknowledges receiving the letter and signals any legal review of the request. 
• Whether the Niger Delta state governments and lawmakers support or oppose the idea of an executive order that shifts focus toward host community outcomes.
• Whether advocacy groups broaden this into a legislative push, since major changes in revenue allocation architecture often end up in court or in the National Assembly.
For now, the demand is clear: a civil society coalition wants Tinubu to issue a 13% derivation fund executive order to strengthen compliance and ensure producing communities see tangible benefits.
https://punchng.com/group-writes-tinubu-seeks-executive-order-on-13-derivation-fund
13% derivation fund executive order
