By JULIET EKANEM

Akwa Ibom, Rivers Shut Out of Fiscal Review Over Missing Budget Data — BudgIT

AKWA Ibom and Rivers states have been excluded from a major assessment of how Nigerian states managed increased revenues in the post-subsidy era.

BudgIT left the two oil-producing states out of its latest analysis because they did not have complete budget implementation records publicly available for the period under review.

The omission means independent analysts and citizens cannot compare the fiscal performance of the two states with that of 34 other states assessed by the civic organisation.

Missing Data Limits Fiscal Assessment

BudgIT’s report, Nigeria’s Reforms: What Has Changed Across Nigeria’s States? An Analysis of State Finances in the Post-Subsidy Years, examined how states’ revenues and expenditures changed between 2022 and 2025.

The assessment covered revenue growth, personnel costs, overheads, capital expenditure and spending on sectors such as education, healthcare, infrastructure and administration.

However, BudgIT said Akwa Ibom and Rivers lacked complete first-quarter to fourth-quarter Budget Implementation Reports for the period required for its analysis.

The organisation based its assessment on actual revenue received and expenditure incurred rather than approved budgets.

That distinction matters because approved budgets show what governments plan to receive and spend. Implementation reports, by contrast, provide evidence of what governments actually received and spent.

States Received More Money After Subsidy Removal

The missing data comes against the backdrop of a sharp increase in state revenues following the removal of the petrol subsidy.

BudgIT found that combined revenue for the 34 states in its assessment rose from ₦4.840 trillion in 2022 to ₦15.526 trillion in 2025.

That represents nominal growth of 220.76 per cent.

Federal Account Allocation Committee, or FAAC, allocations increased from ₦3.427 trillion to ₦11.378 trillion, a 232.06 per cent rise.

Internally generated revenue also increased from ₦1.565 trillion to ₦4.147 trillion, representing 165.01 per cent growth.

BudgIT attributed the overall increase largely to higher federal transfers, currency devaluation, improved tax collection and increased oil revenues.

BudgIT Raises Accountability Concerns

BudgIT Country Director in Nigeria, Vahyala Kwaga, said the exclusion had consequences beyond statistical analysis.

He argued that without regular fiscal information, citizens lose important tools for assessing government performance and asking questions about public spending.

Kwaga urged Rivers State to resume regular publication of its Budget Implementation Reports and make its Accountant-General’s reports available to the public.

He linked Rivers’ reporting difficulties partly to the prolonged political conflict between the executive and legislature.

Akwa Ibom Defends Concise Reports

BudgIT took a different view of Akwa Ibom’s reporting practice.

Kwaga said the state had previously produced more detailed fiscal reports but had reduced the size and detail of its Budget Implementation Reports.

He said some earlier reports exceeded 20 pages, while some more recent reports were reduced to about five pages.

BudgIT therefore called on the state government to restore more detailed fiscal reporting.

The Akwa Ibom Government, however, defended the change.

Commissioner for Budget and Economic Planning, Linus Nkan, said the state deliberately made its reports more concise and easier for citizens to understand.

He argued that some information in detailed quarterly reports could become unwieldy because certain expenditure figures relate to projects still in progress.

Nkan also described the reports as interim documents, saying fuller information would eventually appear in audited accounts.

The Transparency Question Remains

The disagreement raises a broader question about the purpose of periodic budget reporting.

Audited accounts provide an important record of government finances after the close of a financial year. Budget Implementation Reports, however, allow citizens, legislators, researchers and civil society organisations to monitor spending while programmes and projects are still underway.

That distinction makes timely and sufficiently detailed reporting important for public accountability.

In Akwa Ibom, the issue has attracted additional attention because of the substantial revenue available to the state under Governor Umo Eno.

Available records cited in the report showed that the state received ₦2.934 trillion during the first 38 months of the administration.

Yet, without comprehensive implementation reports, independent observers face difficulty determining how the money was received, spent and allocated across projects and programmes.

Rivers Faces a Different Challenge

Rivers presents a different case.

The state endured a prolonged political crisis involving its executive and legislature. The dispute also coincided with a state of emergency declared in March 2025.

The political upheaval disrupted aspects of the state’s budgetary process and contributed to continuing concerns over fiscal reporting.

At the time of BudgIT’s assessment, Rivers had not published complete Budget Implementation Reports for 2025.

The organisation has consequently called for the state to publish its BIRs and Accountant-General’s reports.

The Rivers State Ministry of Information did not respond to an enquiry about the missing report or when it would become available.

A Wider Accountability Problem

BudgIT said it did not deliberately exclude either state. Instead, its methodology required complete Q1-Q4 implementation reports.

As a result, missing data created a gap in the national picture of how states managed increased post-subsidy revenues.

For citizens in Akwa Ibom and Rivers, the problem extends beyond being absent from a comparative table.

It means they have fewer publicly available tools to independently track government revenue and spending.

At a time when states are receiving substantially more public money, the ability to follow where that money goes remains a central test of fiscal transparency.