…With post-subsidy revenues surging, scrutiny should shift from Abuja to the states
Nigerian’s political conversation still revolves around Abuja. When hospitals fail, roads collapse or schools deteriorate, public anger travels quickly to the Federal Government. Yet the fiscal reality has changed. The debate is now in the wrong capital.
The windfall era
Since the removal of fuel subsidy in 2023, allocations from the Federation Account Allocation Committee have surged. Across the country, state revenues from FAAC in 2024 are in many cases more than double 2023 levels. Lagos rose from about N329.69bn to N670.99bn. Delta increased from N580.6bn to N1.19tn. Akwa Ibom moved from N417.2bn to over N1tn. Similar jumps are visible in many smaller states.
This is not marginal growth. It is a structural revenue shift.
Now another layer is emerging. President Bola Tinubu has directed that all payments from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company be remitted directly into the Federation Account. Fiscal analysts estimate that roughly N14.7tn could flow into the distributable pool. That means federal, state and local governments will once again see expanded allocations.
The question is straightforward. What have states done with the first windfall?
Responsibility lies closer to home
Development outcomes in Nigeria are shaped largely at the state and local government levels. Primary healthcare, basic education, rural roads, sanitation, agricultural extension and poverty programmes fall within their constitutional responsibilities. When primary schools lack teachers or health centres lack equipment, those failures rarely originate in Abuja.
Yet project delivery data suggests serious gaps.
Faruq Quadri, an economist SPEC-MATRIX Abuja-based research firm argues that rising allocations without stronger procurement oversight will not automatically improve outcomes. “Revenue growth is only one side of the equation. Without transparent budgeting and enforcement, leakages persist,” he said.
According to the 2024 to 2025 TrackaBudgIT report, only eight states and the Federal Capital Territory completed at least 60 percent of their tracked projects. Bauchi achieved 71.57 percent. Rivers recorded 74.26 percent. Cross River delivered 62.50 percent. Enugu posted 61.96 percent. Gombe reached 66.67 percent. Kano stood at 65.69 percent. Katsina led with 85.84 percent. Niger recorded 64.49 percent. The FCT reached 60.23 percent.
That leaves the majority below that benchmark.
Across all states, average completed projects stand at 52.10 percent. Ongoing projects account for 23.91 percent. Projects not done represent 17.07 percent. Abandoned projects are 3.59 percent. Fraud cases stand at 3.33 percent, with seventeen states reportedly losing completed projects to fraud.
The execution gap
These figures come after increased disbursements.
Capital expenditure has risen in many states. Yet visible outcomes on the ground often remain uneven. Roads are partially built. Health facilities are opened without full equipment. School structures stand without desks or teachers. Citizens see announcements, but not consistent service delivery.
The instinctive reaction is to blame the Federal Government. But higher allocations weaken that argument. When revenue doubles and outcomes remain modest, attention must turn to execution, procurement discipline and fiscal management at the state level.
Read also: Flush with oil revenues, Tinubu faces fiscal discipline test
The next test
The coming increase from NNPC remittances will deepen this test. If allocations rise again, Nigerians will need to ask sharper questions. Michael Ariyibi, a public sector and finance analyst at the Accounting and Financial Training Center, PasswordPro, notes that states should be building fiscal buffers during high-revenue cycles. “Windfalls should strengthen savings and capital discipline, not expand recurrent commitments,” he said.
Are governors building reserves for downturns? Are states publishing transparent accounts of project spending? Are procurement systems insulated from political interference? Are capital projects aligned with measurable improvements in health, education and poverty reduction?
Revenue alone does not produce development. Governance does.
Nigeria’s fiscal debate must therefore mature. Abuja will always matter, but state capitals matter just as much. The delivery of everyday public goods is not decided at the centre alone. It is decided in state ministries, procurement boards and local councils.
The post-subsidy era was presented as a turning point for public finance. It should also be a turning point for accountability. More money is entering the system. Citizens deserve to see where it goes.
If the numbers are rising, performance should rise with them.
