State governments received at least N435.25bn through a relatively new Federation Account Allocation Committee intervention for infrastructure and security between January and June 2026, an analysis of available budget implementation reports has shown.
The funds were recorded under the “State Infrastructure and Security” revenue line, classified under the National Chart of Accounts code 11010313. The intervention is separate from conventional statutory FAAC allocations but is distributed as regular Federation Account revenue.
No allocation was recorded under the funding window during the corresponding period in 2025.
The analysis, based on Q1 and Q2 budget performance reports obtained from Open Nigerian States, a BudgIT-backed repository of government budget data, covered 32 states for which relevant information was available.
Of the 32 states reviewed, 16 specifically reported a combined N265.50bn under the dedicated infrastructure and security revenue line.
Another 13 states disclosed a combined N169.75bn under other separately identified FAAC-related revenue headings, although their reports did not directly classify the funds as infrastructure and security intervention.
The combined identifiable receipts from the 29 states therefore amounted to N435.25bn.
Three states — Adamawa, Anambra and Oyo — recorded zero actual receipts under the dedicated infrastructure and security revenue line during the period.
Adamawa and Anambra, however, had made budgetary provisions for the funding, while Oyo had projected an N8bn allocation.
Akwa Ibom was among the states reviewed, but its available half-year report did not disclose a figure for the infrastructure and security revenue component.
Bayelsa, Edo, Osun and Rivers were excluded because the relevant data were unavailable.
The analysis suggests that the total amount flowing to states through the special funding window could be higher than N435.25bn, particularly because several states classified substantial receipts under other FAAC-related revenue headings.
Among states that separately reported the dedicated revenue line, Enugu recorded the highest receipt at N27.02bn, followed by Gombe with N24.50bn.
Jigawa, Katsina and Ogun each recorded N19.50bn, while Cross River and Yobe received N17.50bn apiece.
Borno recorded N16.41bn, Bauchi N14.58bn, while Ebonyi, Imo, Kano, Kwara and Taraba each reported N14bn.
Sokoto received N12.50bn, while Kogi recorded the lowest amount among the 16 states with clearly identified receipts, at N7bn.
When states that reported the money under other FAAC-related revenue headings were included, Ondo emerged as one of the biggest beneficiaries with N31.86bn, followed by Lagos with N30.30bn.
Abia recorded N24.50bn, Nasarawa N21.24bn, Niger N15.50bn, while Benue and Plateau each reported N14bn.
Delta received N5.50bn, Ekiti N5.38bn, Kaduna N3.83bn, Kebbi N1.95bn and Zamfara N1.71bn.
The 16 states with clearly identified infrastructure and security receipts accounted for about 61 per cent of the N435.25bn, while the 13 states that reported other separately disclosed FAAC-related revenue accounted for approximately 39 per cent.
The total amount represented nearly 10 per cent of the N4.55tn in federation allocations received by states with available half-year records.
It also amounted to 20.71 per cent of the N2.10tn internally generated revenue recorded by the same states during the period.
Compared with their combined N6.65tn FAAC and independent revenue, the N435.25bn represented 6.55 per cent.
Gombe Exceeds Annual Projection
A state-by-state assessment of the dedicated revenue line showed significant variations between actual receipts and budget projections.
Gombe State recorded N24.50bn against an annual budget provision of N5bn, representing 490 per cent of its full-year estimate within the first six months.
Bauchi received N14.58bn, representing 86.6 per cent of its N16.84bn annual provision.
Jigawa recorded 65 per cent performance against its N30bn annual projection, while Yobe received N17.50bn, representing 48 per cent of its N36.49bn budget.
Ogun received N19.50bn against a N51.28bn provision, representing 38 per cent performance.
Enugu recorded N27.02bn against its N80bn budget, representing 33.8 per cent of its annual projection.
Borno received N16.41bn out of N49.44bn, representing 33.2 per cent, while Katsina’s N19.50bn receipt represented 32.4 per cent of its N60.27bn budget.
Kwara recorded N14bn against N49.62bn, representing 28.2 per cent, while Kano received N14bn out of N61.07bn, representing 22.9 per cent.
Kogi recorded N7bn against a N39.19bn budget, representing 17.9 per cent performance.
Taraba received N14bn out of N80.70bn, representing 17.3 per cent, while Ebonyi recorded N14bn against N88.41bn, representing 15.8 per cent.
Sokoto received N12.50bn against a revised N90bn projection, representing 13.9 per cent performance.
Adamawa and Anambra recorded the largest percentage shortfalls, with neither state receiving any funds under the dedicated revenue line during the period.
Adamawa had budgeted about N35.23bn, while Anambra projected N10bn, leaving both states with 100 per cent funding gaps as of June.
Cross River and Imo recorded N17.50bn and N14bn respectively, although corresponding budget figures were unavailable, making performance comparisons impossible.
Experts Seek Transparency
The Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise, Muda Yusuf, described the increased flow of funds to states as a positive development that could strengthen fiscal decentralisation.
He, however, warned that the impact would depend largely on transparency and responsible utilisation of the resources.
Yusuf said greater revenue at the subnational level could improve development and promote wider geographical equity, provided the funds were properly deployed.
He also called for stronger citizen participation in monitoring how states spend the additional resources.
READ ALSO: Nigeria receives $26.9bn development funds in six years
According to him, states should prioritise projects capable of directly improving citizens’ welfare rather than ventures with limited economic value.
Similarly, an economic analyst, Aliyu Ilias, said the decision to attach funding to specific purposes was positive but stressed the need for stronger public oversight.
Ilias urged citizens and civil society organisations to monitor the utilisation of the funds, particularly given the substantial resources states are receiving through subsidy-related interventions and other federal support.
States Acknowledge Increased Revenue
The increased flow of funds to states comes amid broader fiscal reforms and interventions under the Tinubu administration, which have expanded the resources available to subnational governments.
Enugu State Governor, Peter Mbah, recently attributed the scale of infrastructure projects in his state partly to increased financial support available to subnational governments.
Mbah said the Federal Government’s policies had freed up resources and strengthened the capacity of states to drive development from the grassroots.
Delta State Governor, Sheriff Oborevwori, also acknowledged the increase in funds available to states, urging governors to deploy the resources towards projects that would benefit their people.
Bayelsa State Governor, Douye Diri, similarly commended federal interventions that supported the state’s infrastructure programme, particularly its 60-megawatt gas-fired power project.
Nasarawa State Governor, Abdullahi Sule, described the increase in federation allocations as unprecedented, saying the larger resources available to states also came with greater responsibility.
In April 2026, Kaduna State Governor, Uba Sani, also commended the Federal Government for its infrastructure commitments to the state.
The Nigerian Governors Forum has equally reaffirmed its commitment to working with the Federal Government on fiscal reforms aimed at strengthening state capacity, improving revenue mobilisation and expanding service delivery.
The growing infrastructure and security funding comes as states face mounting pressure to finance roads, schools, hospitals and other critical infrastructure while increasing spending on kidnapping, banditry and other security threats.
However, the extent to which the additional resources will improve living conditions will ultimately depend on how transparently the funds are managed and whether they translate into measurable improvements in infrastructure, security and public services.