FAAC BILLIONS, EXECUTIVE MEGA-PROJECTS AND UNPAID GRATUITIES: WHO IS ACCOUNTING TO NIGERIANS?
By Umar U. Duguri
Nigeria’s economic difficulties have made fiscal accountability more urgent than ever. As households struggle with the cost of living, workers demand better conditions, pensioners wait for their entitlements and public hospitals and schools require improved funding, state governments must explain how they prioritise the public resources entrusted to them.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration has repeatedly asked Nigerians to endure economic adjustments in the hope of achieving longer-term stability. Yet the question of sacrifice must not be directed at ordinary citizens alone. Governments at every level must demonstrate that public funds are being spent transparently, prudently and in ways that produce measurable improvements in citizens’ lives.
The central question is straightforward: if governments expect Nigerians to make sacrifices, what sacrifices are their own administrations making—and how openly are they accounting for the resources they receive?
FAAC ALLOCATIONS: THE MONEY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY
The Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) remains a major source of funding for Nigeria’s three tiers of government. Its monthly distributions provide states and local governments with substantial resources to finance salaries, infrastructure, healthcare, education, security and other public services.
According to the Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation, the August 2026 distribution included approximately ₦2.338 trillion in distributable revenue. The reported breakdown allocated ₦804.897 billion to the Federal Government, ₦794.313 billion to state governments and ₦555.142 billion to local government councils, alongside derivation revenue for oil-producing states.
The August distribution was also reported to have fallen by approximately 22.2 per cent from July’s ₦3.007 trillion, highlighting the importance of prudent planning in a fluctuating revenue environment.
These figures establish two important points. First, states receive substantial public resources through the federation’s revenue-sharing arrangements. Second, allocations can fluctuate, making it essential for governments to match expenditure commitments with realistic revenue projections.
However, FAAC allocations are not personal gifts to governors, nor are they entirely available for discretionary projects. Governments must meet statutory obligations, personnel costs, debt service and other legitimate commitments. The public-interest issue is whether the remaining resources are allocated according to clearly stated priorities and spent with demonstrable value for money.
Revenue transparency must therefore go hand in hand with expenditure transparency. Citizens deserve to know not only what their states receive, but also what is spent, what has been completed, what remains outstanding and what measurable benefits have resulted.
Source: Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation, "August 2026 FAAC distribution" (https://fmino.gov.ng/fg-states-and-lgcs-share-n2-338-trillion-from-n3-685-trillion-gross-revenue-for-august-2026/); The Punch, "report on the August distribution" (https://punchng.com/faac-allocation-drops-22-to-n2-34trn-in-august/).
₦512.1 BILLION IN SIX MONTHS: WHAT THE EXECUTIVE SPENDING FIGURES REVEAL
A report published in August 2026 by Nigeria Wall Street, drawing on available state budget implementation reports, estimated that 33 states recorded a combined ₦512.10 billion in first-half 2026 expenditure under identified Government House, Governor’s Office, related executive-administration and travel-and-transport expenditure categories.
Of that amount, approximately ₦420.01 billion was recorded under Government House, Governor’s Office and related executive-administration headings, while ₦92.09 billion was recorded under travel and transport.
The analysis used the largest identifiable expenditure line for executive administration in each state alongside the general travel-and-transport heading. Comparable data were unavailable for Edo, Osun and Rivers in that particular dataset.
These figures are reported expenditure, not necessarily approved budgets, releases or payments made directly to governors. They also do not establish that every naira was spent on luxury. Executive-administration headings may include staff, official operations, security-related expenses, maintenance and other legitimate costs. Travel expenditure may also include official assignments.
Nevertheless, the aggregate amount raises a legitimate public-finance question: what proportion of these expenditures directly advances public services, and how much could be saved through better procurement, tighter controls and more disciplined administration?
The proper response is not to assume wrongdoing, but to demand detailed expenditure breakdowns, procurement records, budget-performance reports and evidence of results.
Source: "Nigeria Wall Street’s report on state executive and travel spending" (https://www.nigeriawallstreet.com/news/states-spend-n512bn-on-governors-offices-and-travel/2026/08/26/).
KOGI, OGUN AND LAGOS: THE HIGHEST IDENTIFIABLE EXECUTIVE EXPENDITURE
The same analysis reported substantial differences among states.
Kogi recorded approximately ₦65.34 billion under the identified Government House and Governor’s Office expenditure categories during the first half of 2026. Ogun followed with ₦45.26 billion, while Lagos recorded ₦45.04 billion.
Kano recorded ₦25.87 billion, Ekiti ₦25.22 billion and Cross River ₦23.92 billion. Bayelsa recorded ₦22.99 billion, while Imo and Enugu recorded ₦19.43 billion and ₦16.20 billion, respectively.
These figures are reported expenditure under specified headings, not necessarily approved budgets, releases or actual payments for individual projects. They should not be mistaken for proven waste or for the personal spending of governors. The headings can cover different activities across states. Differences in population, administrative structures, accounting classifications and project scope may also affect comparisons.
Even so, the scale of the expenditure makes a compelling case for governments to publish itemised explanations. What was budgeted, released and actually spent on staff and routine administration? What went into construction, renovation, furnishings and equipment? How much was devoted to security, maintenance and official functions? What procurement procedures were followed, and what outputs were delivered?
These are reasonable questions for citizens, journalists, legislators and public auditors to ask.
A state that can demonstrate efficient administration and clear public benefits should have little difficulty explaining its expenditure. Where the records are incomplete, the government should publish the missing details rather than dismiss scrutiny as political hostility.
Source: "Nigeria Wall Street’s analysis of state spending" (https://www.nigeriawallstreet.com/news/states-spend-n512bn-on-governors-offices-and-travel/2026/08/26/).
OYO: THE ₦63.4 BILLION GOVERNMENT HOUSE CONTROVERSY
Oyo State attracted national attention in June 2025 following reports that the government had approved approximately ₦63.4 billion for the redevelopment of the Government House.
The figure is an approval or reported project commitment, not evidence that ₦63.4 billion had been released or spent. The scale of the proposal prompted questions about whether such expenditure should take priority over healthcare, education, pensions and other services directly affecting citizens.
The state government, however, rejected the description of the project as a mere renovation. It explained that the plan involved a comprehensive redevelopment affecting 21 structures, including the presidential lodge, banquet hall, official residences, staff quarters, religious facilities, internal roads, landscaping and other infrastructure.
The government also argued that its internally generated revenue had increased and cited its wider programme of public projects and worker-related expenditure.
That response must be acknowledged. A large redevelopment project is not automatically wasteful simply because it is expensive. Buildings may require structural work, and the state has a responsibility to maintain essential public infrastructure.
But the scale of the proposed expenditure demands equally serious questions. Was the full scope independently assessed? Were alternative, less costly designs considered? Was the contract competitively procured? What are the project’s milestones, payment schedule and completion status? Has the government published sufficient information to establish value for money?
The public should not be expected to choose between accepting a project without scrutiny and condemning it without evidence. Transparent records would allow citizens to make an informed judgement.
Sources: The Guardian, "Oyo’s ₦63.4 billion Government House proposal" (https://guardian.ng/news/oyo-approves-n63-4b-govt-house-renovation-to-mark-states-50th-anniversary/); and "the state government’s explanation" (https://guardian.ng/news/oyo-clarifies-%E2%82%A663-4b-govt-house-project-as-full-redevelopment-not-renovation/).
GOMBE: ₦43.1 BILLION FOR EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS
Gombe State was also cited in reporting published in June 2025 over expenditure commitments totalling approximately ₦43.1 billion for a new governor’s residence, a High Court and a House of Assembly complex, with the reported allocations dating to 2023.
The reported ₦43.1 billion is described as an allocation or commitment; the available account does not establish how much was subsequently released, paid or spent. The scale of the combined projects drew criticism amid concerns about education, infrastructure and other basic public needs.
There is, however, an important distinction between questioning priorities and declaring a project unnecessary. A state may legitimately need a functioning legislature, courts and official facilities. The accountability test is whether the cost is proportionate to the need, whether procurement was transparent and whether the projects offer adequate value for money.
Gombe’s government should therefore be able to provide a project-by-project breakdown, including the amount approved, contract sums, payments made, contractors, original and revised completion dates, and the current status of each facility.
Where projects are justified by institutional needs, the government should demonstrate that justification with evidence. Where costs have risen or completion has been delayed, it should explain why.
Source: The Guardian, "report on state government-house and renovation spending" (https://guardian.ng/news/amid-weak-social-services-states-stake-nearly-n200b-on-renovations/).
BAUCHI: EXECUTIVE BUILDINGS VERSUS RETIREES’ ENTITLEMENTS
Bauchi State provides another important case study in the debate over public spending priorities.
A report published in 2025 stated that approximately ₦16.1 billion had been allocated in 2023 towards the renovation of the Government House and annexes in Abuja and Kaduna. This is a reported budget allocation, not proof that the full amount was released or spent. In July 2025, the state government also commenced the remodelling and reconstruction of the House of Assembly complex at a reported cost of ₦7.8 billion. The ₦7.8 billion is described as a reported project cost or commitment; the available account does not establish the amount paid to date.
These are significant commitments, especially when considered alongside the state’s long-running gratuity obligations to retired workers.
The government has argued that modern public buildings and improved working environments are necessary for effective governance. That position deserves consideration. The Assembly, courts and executive institutions require functional facilities, and public construction should not be rejected simply because it involves large sums.
The more important question is whether the projects were appropriately prioritised, competitively procured and delivered at reasonable cost while other outstanding obligations were being addressed.
The gratuity figures make this question particularly important.
In September 2026, the state government announced the commencement of an ₦11.704 billion gratuity payment programme covering 5,736 state and local government retirees whose validated entitlements dated from 2012 to 2016. The administration had approved an initial ₦10 billion to be paid in phases. The ₦11.704 billion was the announced programme value, while ₦10 billion was the initial approved amount; neither figure, by itself, establishes the total amount actually released or paid.
A subsequent report published on 11 October stated that ₦2.369 billion had been paid to 1,285 retirees in the first phase. A further 243 retirees expected in that phase had not appeared to collect their cheques, according to the report. The government had announced plans to begin the next phase with 2014 state retirees from 12 October.
These are developments that should be reported fairly. The commencement of payments is a positive step, and the administration deserves credit for any verified progress in clearing the backlog. At the same time, retirees need clarity on the remaining balance, the number of beneficiaries still awaiting payment and the timetable for completing the exercise.
The state should publish periodic updates showing actual payments, outstanding liabilities and the criteria used to determine payment order.
The issue is not whether Bauchi should build public infrastructure or pay retirees. It must do both. The issue is whether spending commitments are sequenced responsibly and whether vulnerable citizens are left waiting without clear explanations while other large projects proceed.
Sources: The Guardian, "Bauchi’s ₦7.8 billion Assembly complex" (https://guardian.ng/news/bauchi-begins-reconstruction-of-n7-8b-legislative-complex/); Tribune Online, "₦11.7 billion gratuity programme" (https://tribuneonlineng.com/bauchi-begins-n11-7bn-gratuity-payment-to-5736-retirees/) and "first-phase payments to 1,285 retirees" (https://tribuneonlineng.com/1285-state-lg-retirees-receive-n2-369bn-as-gratuity-in-bauchi/).
KANO: EXECUTIVE UPGRADES AND THE NEED FOR CLEAR PRIORITIES
Kano’s 2025 budget provided for more than ₦335 million in Government House renovation and security-related upgrades, according to The Guardian’s review of state spending. This is a budget provision, not evidence that the full amount was released or spent. Reported items included a family-wing renovation, furnishings and an automated intelligence-surveillance system.
The same report highlighted the state’s substantial allocations to health and education, illustrating why public spending should be examined as a whole rather than through a single budget line.
Kano’s 2025 citizens’ budget also listed ₦7 billion for the purchase of landed properties in the Government House neighbourhood and ₦4 billion for construction of a new state Assembly complex. These are budgeted amounts; the document does not, without implementation records, establish actual releases, payments or expenditure.
These entries merit explanation. The public should be told the intended purpose of the property acquisitions, the ownership and valuation of the land, the procurement method and the expected public benefit. For the Assembly project, the state should disclose the design, contract sum, payment schedule and construction progress.
At the same time, the existence of these allocations does not establish that the government has neglected healthcare or education. Those claims must be tested against actual budget implementation and service-delivery outcomes.
A credible assessment should compare planned expenditure with money actually released and spent, then examine whether residents can see improvements in schools, hospitals, roads, water supply and other essential services.
Sources: The Guardian’s "report on government-house expenditure" (https://guardian.ng/news/amid-weak-social-services-states-stake-nearly-n200b-on-renovations/); Kano State Government, "2025 Citizens’ Budget" (https://kanostate.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Kano-State-Citizens-Budget-2025.pdf).
ZAMFARA: BILLIONS COMMITTED AMID SECURITY AND WELFARE CONCERNS
Zamfara also featured in The Guardian’s 2025 examination of government-house spending. The report cited more than ₦14 billion approved in 2023 for government-house and lodge renovations, while another section referred to ₦11 billion spent on government-house construction.
These figures are not directly comparable: the first is described as an approval, while the second is described as expenditure. They should not be added together without examining their underlying project descriptions, dates and accounting treatment; they may refer to different projects or related spending.
Nevertheless, the reported sums raise a legitimate question about the balance between executive infrastructure and the state’s urgent public needs, particularly in a state facing persistent insecurity.
The public interest test is whether the projects were necessary, appropriately costed and procured transparently—and whether the government can demonstrate that security, education, healthcare and basic infrastructure receive adequate funding.
In a state where communities have faced serious security challenges, citizens are entitled to demand clear explanations of expenditure priorities. The government should provide evidence of both the need for the projects and the public benefits expected from them.
Source: The Guardian, "report on state renovation expenditure" (https://guardian.ng/news/amid-weak-social-services-states-stake-nearly-n200b-on-renovations/).
NIGER: THE HISTORICAL ₦2.9 BILLION GOVERNMENT HOUSE UPGRADE
The same Guardian investigation cited a historical expenditure of nearly ₦2.9 billion on upgrading Niger State’s Government House under the administration of former governor Abubakar Bello.
The report raised concerns about public facilities in rural communities, including schools lacking basic amenities. However, the figure relates to an earlier administration and should not be presented as the current governor’s expenditure.
Its continuing relevance lies in the broader lesson: state governments should demonstrate that the cost of maintaining executive facilities is proportionate to their needs and does not crowd out essential services.
For historical projects, the proper questions include whether the expenditure was completed as budgeted, whether the assets remain functional and whether audit records identified any irregularities.
TARABA, ANAMBRA, BENUE AND ABIA: QUESTIONS THAT REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION
The Guardian’s June 2025 investigation also referenced government-building expenditure in Taraba, Anambra, Benue and Abia.
It reported historical expenditure of approximately ₦14 billion on a government-house project in Taraba in 2015 and around ₦6 billion on Government House renovation in Anambra in 2022. In Abia, the report cited more than ₦5 billion spent by a previous administration on government lodges in Umuahia and Abuja, while controversies over government buildings in Benue were also mentioned.
These examples cover different administrations and financial years. They should not be treated as a single current spending programme, nor should the figures be added together without checking whether they refer to completed projects, approved budgets, contract awards or actual payments.
Their relevance is that public buildings can remain costly political symbols long after the original administration leaves office. Governments should publish asseproject completion reports, maintenance costs and information on whether facilities are being used effectively.
Where a building is no longer required for its original purpose, governments should assess whether it can be repurposed to serve the public rather than continue consuming resources without clear benefits.
In Abia, for example, The Guardian reported that a former Government House was being considered for conversion into a five-star hotel. Any such proposal should be assessed transparently, with an independent valuation, a clear business case and disclosure of the terms under which public assets would be managed.
Source: The Guardian, Amid weak social services, states stake nearly ₦200 billion on renovations.
CROSS RIVER, BAYELSA, IMO AND ENUGU: WHAT THE 2026 FIGURES SHOULD TRIGGER
The first-half 2026 expenditure analysis identified ₦23.92 billion in Cross River, ₦22.99 billion in Bayelsa, ₦19.43 billion in Imo and ₦16.20 billion in Enugu under the relevant Government House, Governor’s Office and executive-administration headings.
These amounts are reported expenditure under the relevant headings. They are not necessarily approved budgets or amounts released for specific projects and should not automatically be labelled luxury spending. Without itemised records, it would be inaccurate to claim that the figures represent renovations alone or that the entire expenditure was avoidable.
The figures nevertheless justify requests for more detailed disclosure.
Each state should publish the components of executive-administration expenditure, distinguish routine operations from capital projects and identify major contracts. It should also explain how much was spent on official travel, what purposes the journeys served and what outcomes followed.
Where expenditure is recurring, the public should be able to determine whether costs are increasing, whether they are consistent with approved budgets and whether cost-saving alternatives have been considered.
This is especially important because the public cannot evaluate the efficiency of government simply by looking at the size of an allocation. The relevant questions are what the money purchased, whether it was necessary, what it cost compared with alternatives and whether it delivered the intended result.
RIVERS AND THE PROBLEM OF INCOMPLETE COMPARABLE DATA
Rivers State illustrates another difficulty in assessing state spending: the absence of comparable figures in some cross-state analyses.
The available dataset used for the first-half 2026 national comparison did not include comparable data for Rivers, Edo and Osun. Their absence means the reported national total cannot be treated as a complete account of expenditure by all 36 states.
Rivers State’s own published 2025 budget nevertheless contains identifiable allocations for Government House and executive facilities, including construction and renovation projects. A budget allocation, however, is not proof that the entire sum was released or spent.
The state should therefore be assessed using its own budget implementation reports, audited accounts, procurement records and project-completion information. The same standard should apply to every state, regardless of political affiliation.
Incomplete data should prompt requests for disclosure, not speculation. Where records are unavailable, governments and relevant oversight institutions should make them accessible so citizens can judge performance on a consistent basis.
THE CENTRAL QUESTION: WHAT ARE CITIZENS GETTING FOR THEIR MONEY?
The examples across Nigeria do not prove that all executive projects are wasteful. Governments need offices, courts, legislative chambers, secure residences and functioning administrative facilities. Some old buildings may be unsafe or unsuitable, and properly procured capital projects can create long-term public value.
But legitimacy depends on more than the ability to approve a project. Governments must demonstrate necessity, reasonable cost, transparent procurement, timely delivery and public benefit.
Where hundreds of millions or billions of naira are committed to executive facilities, citizens should be able to compare those commitments with the condition of public hospitals, schools, rural roads, water systems and social-protection programmes.
The question should also extend to completed projects. A ribbon-cutting ceremony is not proproof of value for money. Citizens need to know whether the facility is operational, whether equipment is available, whether staff are present and whether the project has improved public services.
Likewise, an allocation to education or healthcare does not prove that services have improved. Actual releases, expenditure, project delivery and measurable outcomes matter.
The test of responsible leadership is not how impressive a Government House looks, but whether public institutions work and citizens receive the services they are entitled to expect.
A FIVE-POINT PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AGENDA
To strengthen public confidence and ensure that revenue translates into public benefit, state governments should adopt five practical measures.
1. Publish monthly revenue and expenditure summaries. Each state should disclose its FAAC receipts, internally generated revenue, other major inflows, statutory obligations and expenditure against approved budgets, clearly distinguishing budgeted amounts, releases, commitments and actual expenditure.
2. Publish major project contracts and implementation status. For significant projects, citizens should have access to the approved scope, contract sum, contractor, procurement method, payment schedule, amounts released and paid, completion date and current status, subject to lawful security and confidentiality restrictions.
3. Explain executive-administration and travel expenditure. Governments should provide itemised breakdowns that distinguish staff and routine operations from capital projects, renovations, furnishings and official travel.
4. Report outstanding obligations to workers and retirees. States should publish verified liabilities, actual payments, remaining balances and realistic settlement schedules for gratuities, pensions and other outstanding entitlements.
5. Strengthen independent oversight. State assemblies, auditors-general, procurement regulators and anti-corruption institutions should examine major spending commitments and publish findings, including corrective action where irregularities are established.
These measures should apply equally to federal, state and local governments. Accountability cannot be selective or deployed only against political opponents.
CONCLUSION: SACRIFICE MUST BEGIN WITH RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE
Nigeria’s fiscal challenges demand discipline from every level of government. States cannot control every factor affecting revenue, and FAAC distributions fluctuate. But governments retain considerable responsibility for how they plan, procure, prioritise and report their spending.
The public deserves neither blanket condemnation of every major project nor unquestioning acceptance of expensive government initiatives. It deserves evidence.
Where a project is necessary and well executed, governments should demonstrate its value. Where expenditure is excessive, poorly explained or delayed, officials should answer legitimate questions. Where audit findings establish irregularities, the appropriate institutions should act according to the law.
President Tinubu’s economic agenda will be more credible if the wider public sector visibly embraces transparency and restraint. Governors who want citizens to trust their policies must show how public money is being used, what outcomes it has produced and what remains to be done.
The ultimate measure of government is not the scale of official buildings, the frequency of ceremonies or the size of budget announcements. It is the quality of life of the people.
If Nigerians are being asked to make sacrifices, governments at every level must demonstrate that public resources are being managed with the same seriousness they demand from the citizens they govern.
