₦2.943 Trillion In Revenue, Few Answers: Eno’s Accountability Claim Meets Akwa Ibom’s Fiscal Secrecy
By OFFIONG ARCHIBONG
GOVERNOR Umo Eno says he is ready to account for every naira his administration has received since taking office.
He says the documents exist. He says the projects are visible. He says he is prepared to explain his stewardship “at any time” and “on any day.”
Yet the central question remains unresolved.
How much of the ₦2.943 trillion that Akwa Ibom State received under his administration can citizens independently trace through the government’s published financial records?
That question has become more significant as the state’s fiscal reports have grown less detailed.
At a monthly prayer meeting on 1 September, Mr. Eno defended his administration’s record while praising President Bola Tinubu for increased financial resources available to state governments.
“If we have succeeded at all, have you seen all these projects? It is because there is funding for it,” the governor said.
He insisted that his government had documentation to support its spending.
However, available fiscal reports have not provided the level of detail needed to independently test that assertion, according to findings and concerns raised by BudgIT Foundation.
The resulting gap between what the governor says is available and what the public can actually access has placed transparency at the centre of the debate over Akwa Ibom’s finances.
The Revenue Boom
The scale of the money involved makes the issue difficult to dismiss as a routine dispute over accounting formats.
An analysis of the state’s audited financial statements, budget performance reports and revenue records found that the Eno administration received at least ₦2.943 trillion between May 2023 and June 2026.
That figure represents a substantial increase compared with the resources available to previous administrations.
By December 2025, the administration had already received about ₦2.53 trillion, according to an earlier report.
That amount exceeded the revenue received by former Governor Udom Emmanuel during his eight-year tenure, combined with the final four months of former Governor Godswill Akpabio’s administration.
The growth reflects broader changes in Nigeria’s fiscal environment.
Higher federally shared revenues, changes in the exchange rate and other revenue developments have increased the resources available to state governments.
But more money also creates a greater demand for disclosure.
The larger the public purse becomes, the more important it is for citizens to know where the money goes.
The Missing Capital Expenditure Details
This is where Akwa Ibom’s recent financial reporting raises questions.
The state’s audited financial statements for 2023, 2024 and 2025 reportedly did not contain detailed capital expenditure schedules.
The state’s budget performance reports also became less comprehensive.
Reports covering the first quarter of 2025 through the second quarter of 2026 omitted detailed capital expenditure information that had previously enabled citizens to compare approved projects with actual spending.
Before 2025, quarterly budget implementation reports provided more information.
Citizens could examine projects contained in approved budgets and compare them with actual expenditure.
The subsequent reports became considerably shorter.
That change has consequences.
Without detailed schedules, citizens may struggle to determine the precise amount spent on individual projects, the ministries or agencies responsible for implementation, the source of funds and the extent to which particular projects have actually been executed.
The issue, therefore, is not simply whether Akwa Ibom publishes a budget report.
The more important question is whether the report contains enough information to make public spending traceable.
BudgIT Raises the Transparency Question
BudgIT’s assessment of states’ second-quarter 2026 budget implementation reports brought the issue into sharper focus.
The organisation acknowledged that Akwa Ibom had published its Q2 report.
But it also identified what it described as significant data gaps that limited public scrutiny.
Its broader argument was straightforward: publishing a document does not automatically make government spending transparent.
For meaningful accountability, citizens need enough information to follow public money from allocation to expenditure.
BudgIT said it had raised its concerns with the Akwa Ibom government but received no response.
That silence has added another layer to the controversy.
A government that says it has nothing to hide should, in principle, have little difficulty providing the underlying information required for independent verification.
Projects Are Not the Same as Financial Disclosure
Governor Eno has repeatedly pointed to projects as evidence of his administration’s performance.
At the September prayer meeting, he referred to 39 projects being executed to mark the state’s 39th anniversary.
“These 39 projects is their money,” he said.
The governor’s argument has an obvious political dimension.
Physical projects provide visible evidence of government activity.
Roads, schools, health facilities and other infrastructure can be seen and assessed by residents.
But visibility does not necessarily answer every financial question.
A completed road, for instance, may demonstrate that government undertook a project. It does not by itself disclose the contract value, payment schedule, contractor, variations, procurement process or final cost.
That distinction lies at the heart of the transparency debate.
Government documentation may exist internally.
Citizens, however, need sufficient access to relevant records to test the government’s claims independently.
A Promise of Accountability Meets a Legal Obligation
The debate also carries a legal and policy dimension.
Akwa Ibom’s Fiscal Responsibility Law requires transparency in the management of public finances, including full and timely disclosure and broad publication of transactions involving public revenue and expenditure.
The governor also promised transparency and accountability in his ARISE Manifesto.
Those commitments raise the standard against which his administration’s current reporting practices can be assessed.
If the government’s internal records contain the necessary details, publishing them would allow citizens, journalists, civil society organisations and financial experts to independently examine the administration’s claims.
Without that disclosure, the public remains dependent largely on official assertions and visible projects.
Tinubu’s Funding Claim
Governor Eno has also credited President Tinubu’s administration with improving the financial position of states.
He argued that previous federal governments did not release funds to states in the same manner.
But he did not provide figures or documentary evidence to support the comparison.
Available fiscal records indicate that allocations to the three tiers of government were lower under previous administrations, partly because of fuel subsidy payments and exchange-rate differences.
Akwa Ibom nevertheless received substantial allocations under those administrations.
The difference today is the scale of the revenue available to the state.
That makes the demand for detailed disclosure even more pressing.
More revenue should produce more capacity for development.
It should also produce more information about how that revenue is being deployed.
The Question Is Not Whether Eno Will Account
Governor Eno says he is ready to give an account.
The real accountability test, however, lies beyond the declaration.
It lies in the records.
Can citizens determine exactly how much the state received? Can they trace the money to specific projects? Can they establish how much each project cost? Can they identify the ministries, agencies, contractors and beneficiaries involved? Can independent observers reconcile approved budgets with actual expenditure?
Those questions require more than speeches.
They require detailed, accessible and consistent financial disclosure.
The Eno administration says it has the documentation.
BudgIT and other observers have questioned whether enough of that information has reached the public.
Until the gap closes, the controversy over Akwa Ibom’s ₦2.943 trillion revenue will remain less about whether the governor says he can account for the money and more about whether citizens have the information needed to verify that account.
In public finance, accountability does not end with an assurance.
It begins when the evidence becomes accessible.
