Connect with us

Business

FG disburses N2.45tn to states for infrastructure, security

Published

on

The total amount disbursed to state governments and the Federal Capital Territory as financial support for infrastructure and security projects has increased to N2.45tn, official records from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation have revealed.

The amount disbursed between March 2024 and August 2025, which spanned over 17 months, was aimed at bolstering infrastructure development and strengthening security operations at the subnational level, as part of ongoing efforts to address widespread insecurity and bridge critical infrastructure gaps across the country.

These details were contained in internal documents from the OAGF, submitted at the December 2025 Federal Accounts Allocation Committee meeting, obtained on Friday.

The disbursements were made under a special intervention programme funded through non-oil revenue savings, as part of efforts to ease fiscal pressure on subnational governments and accelerate project execution at the grassroots.

The document, titled “Ledger of Savings on Intervention to States Infrastructure and Security,” showed that the payments were drawn from non-oil revenue savings, totalling N2.45tn within the 17 months. However, the document did not disclose how much each state received or whether the funds were disbursed separately from the monthly revenue allocation.

Details of the transactions indicated that the total receipts by the Federal Government over the period stood at N2.45tn, from which N2.45tn was paid out to state governments and the Federal Capital Territory, leaving zero balance as of 25 August 2025.

The document disclosed that total disbursements in 2024 amounted to N1.184tn, following four transactions in April (N259bn), May (N222bn), September (N370bn), and December (N333bn).

In 2025, payments rose further to N1.266tn, driven by six transfers spread across February (N216bn), April (N200bn), May (N250bn), June (N250bn), July (N250bn), and August (N100bn), underscoring a sustained pace of funding releases to beneficiaries over the two-year period.

Each payment is recorded as a “Payment for Intervention to States and FCT”, while corresponding inflows are titled “Transfer from Non-Oil Savings.”

Recall that on July 20, 2023, President Bola Tinubu approved the establishment of the Infrastructure Support Fund for the 36 states of the federation as part of measures to cushion the effects of the petrol subsidy removal on the people.

Providing more details on the establishment of the ISF for the 36 states, the then Special Adviser to the President, Special Duties, Communications and Strategy, Dele Alake, said, in a statement, “The new infrastructure fund will enable the states to intervene and invest in the critical areas of transportation, including farm to market road improvements; agriculture, encompassing livestock and ranching solutions; health, with a focus on basic healthcare; education, especially basic education; power and water resources, that will improve economic competitiveness, create jobs and deliver economic prosperity for Nigerians.

See also  Marketers drop petrol prices below Dangote’s cost

“The committee also resolved to save a portion of the monthly distributable proceeds to minimise the impact of the increased revenues, occasioned by the subsidy removal and exchange rate unification, on money supply, as well as inflation and the exchange rate.”

He added, “These savings will complement the efforts of the ISF and other existing and planned fiscal measures, all aimed at ensuring that the subsidy removal translates into tangible improvements in the lives and living standards of Nigerians.”

A breakdown of the transactions shows that monthly receipts into the account and subsequent disbursements largely followed a predictable pattern, punctuated by periods of sharp spikes that reflected major intervention payments to states. In March 2024, the Federal Government received N300bn as a transfer from non-oil savings but did not make any disbursement to states in that month. This was followed in April 2024 by a payment of N259bn to states, even as only N100bn was received into the account during the period.

In May 2024, inflows remained modest, with N100bn saved into the account, while a larger sum of N222bn was paid out to sub-national governments. Savings of N100bn were again recorded in June 2024, with no corresponding disbursement reported. The trend continued in July and August 2024, when N100bn was received in each month, also without any payments to states.

A major shift occurred in September 2024, when N100bn was received into the account before a substantial N370bn was disbursed to states as intervention funding. Inflows of N100bn resumed in October 2024, followed by a higher savings of N200bn in November 2024, reflecting an effort to rebuild balances after the heavy September payout. By December 2024, another significant intervention was executed, with N333bn shared among benefiting states.

The pattern extended into 2025, beginning with savings of N100bn recorded in both January and February. This was followed by a disbursement of N216bn in February, paid to states as intervention support. In March and April 2025, the Federal Government again saved N100bn in each month, before transferring N200bn to states in April.

See also  Inflation will soon hit single digit, Presidency assures Nigerians

By May 2025, both savings and disbursements increased, with N250bn saved and an equal N250bn paid to states within the same month.

This one-to-one pattern continued through June and July, when states received N250bn in each month, matching the amounts saved. In August 2025, the trend moderated, with N100bn saved and the same amount subsequently shared among states, underscoring a closer alignment between inflows and intervention payments in the latter part of the period.

The regular monthly payments, typically N100bn, reflect a structured intervention strategy by the FG to provide fiscal support to subnational governments.

The payments, made monthly under the Federation Account framework, are aimed at supporting subnational governments to address pressing infrastructure gaps and security-related challenges. However, questions remain over how the funds are being utilised by states, especially given rising public concern about transparency in state-level spending.

Reacting in an earlier interview, the Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, Auwal Rafsanjani, criticised the Federal Government and state governors over what he described as the poor and unaccountable use of the N1.6tn disbursed for infrastructure and security between March 2024 and May 2025.

Rafsanjani, speaking in an interview with The PUNCH, said the funds, which were meant to address critical developmental challenges across the country, have not achieved their objective, considering the level of insecurity in the country.

He noted that with political actors already preoccupied with the 2027 elections, public spending has become more about power retention than people-oriented development.

He said, “First and foremost, we are in the era of financial recklessness. We are in the era of the collapse of responsible governance, accountability, and a collapse in poor projects and programmes that would impact the Nigerian people. So we are not surprised to see this level of lack of poor utilisation of these savings to ameliorate the suffering of Nigerians in terms of infrastructure, insecurity, healthcare, education, and basic amenities that are needed for the society or for the people to be productive and protected in Nigeria.

See also  PENGASSAN backs NUPENG, threatens shutdown of Dangote refinery

“Instead, we are seeing democratic scrambling of public resources without accountability for personal use. This is what we are experiencing, and unfortunately, this is what public officials and political officials are doing in the country. Right now, the only preoccupation is 2027, so wherever they can make money to invest in the 2027 election at the expense of development in Nigeria. This is why you can’t have any accountable public spending in Nigeria.”

“No, this can’t be judiciously spent, because if it were, we would have seen the positive impact on the nation. But because it is not judiciously spent, that’s why you can’t see any manifestation of benefits to the Nigerian people.

“The whole idea was probably not to allow the public to know these things, where questions would be asked. We need to make a serious issue, it would continue, and this is happening at all levels.”

It was recalls that, beyond these interventions, the Federal Government continues to fund major infrastructure projects, including the approval of a N1tn Metropolitan Rail Service for Kano State, designed to improve urban transportation, stimulate economic activities, and ease traffic congestion in the state capital.

The approval was disclosed by Kano State Governor, Abba Yusuf, while addressing members of the state contingent that participated in the 2025 National Qur’anic Recitation Competition held in Borno State.

“The Federal Government has approved the construction of a N1 trillion Metropolitan Rail Service for Kano State in a major move aimed at transforming urban transportation,” the statement read.

Yusuf said the rail project would provide a modern, efficient, and affordable mass transit system linking major districts within the Kano metropolis, thereby enhancing mobility and stimulating trade and investment.

“The Kano Metropolitan Rail Service will transform public transportation in the state by providing a reliable, safe, and affordable means of movement for residents across the metropolis,” the governor was quoted as saying.

Kano’s receipt of the large-scale infrastructure intervention comes against the backdrop of recent political realignments in the state, following the defection of key political actors to the ruling All Progressives Congress.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Court orders Virgin Atlantic to pay N13m for missed flight

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited to pay Mrs. Joy Ezetah the sum of $5,906.50 in damages after it failed to allow her board a scheduled Lagos-London flight, an incident that disrupted her onward trip to Canada and caused her financial loss.

Justice Ibrahim Kala in the judgement delivered on Monday, held that the airline was liable for the losses suffered by the claimant after she was denied boarding at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport on 6 April 2024.

The claimant had asked the court for N100m in general damages, arguing that she bought a business-class ticket through Air Canada for a four-leg trip from Lagos to Toronto and back, but was stopped from boarding the Virgin Atlantic flight “without justification.”

She told the court that she arrived early, completed check-in, and was issued a boarding pass for the Lagos-London leg.

According to her, airline officials later prevented her from boarding, stating they could not connect her ticket to her Air Canada connecting flight from London to Toronto.

Ezetah stated that the airline owed her a duty of care and should have resolved the issue with Air Canada or made other arrangements instead of denying her boarding.

She further maintained that when she later contacted Air Canada, the airline confirmed that her ticket was valid and that she was expected on the connecting flight.

Virgin Atlantic, however, denied liability. It said it was “not the issuing carrier” and insisted that the ticket had been purchased directly from Air Canada under a codeshare arrangement.

See also  Infractions - FG threatens to disconnect Gencos from power grid

The airline also argued that an error code in the reservation system prevented it from issuing a boarding pass for the connecting flight and that it acted professionally by advising the passenger to contact the ticket issuer.

It further contended that the claimant’s inability to complete online check-in before arriving at the airport showed that there was already a problem with the ticket.

After reviewing the evidence, submissions and legal authorities cited by both sides, Justice Kala held that the claimant’s case had merit.

The court awarded $5,906.50 in damages against Virgin Atlantic and ordered that the sum be paid using the prevailing exchange rate published by the Central Bank of Nigeria. Based on the highest official rate of N1,365.50 to a dollar, the award translates to about N8.07m.

Justice Kala also ordered the airline to pay 10 per cent interest per annum on the judgment sum until full liquidation of the debt.

Additionally, the court awarded N5m as costs against Virgin Atlantic, noting that the claimant had been forced to approach the court to enforce her rights.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Business

States kick as Senate moves to amend Electricity Act; read details

Published

on

A fresh battle over the control of Nigeria’s electricity sector is brewing, as state electricity regulators have accused the National Assembly of attempting to claw back powers already devolved to states under the Constitution and the Electricity Act 2023.

In a strongly worded memorandum submitted to the Senate Committee on Power and obtained by our correspondent on Tuesday, electricity regulatory commissions and bureaus from 16 states warned that the proposed Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 could reverse one of the most significant reforms in Nigeria’s power sector.

The regulators argued that the amendment bill, rather than strengthening the electricity market, seeks to restore extensive federal oversight over matters they insist have constitutionally become the responsibility of states.

The concerns were contained in a letter dated May 26, 2026, addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Power and signed on behalf of the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and Bureaus.

Signatories to the document included the chairmen and chief executives of electricity regulators in Abia, Anambra, Bayelsa, Edo, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Kogi, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo and Plateau states.

The regulators said they had taken advantage of the Electricity Act 2023 to begin building sub-national electricity markets and had already engaged investors based on the framework created by the law.

They noted that they had earlier met with the Senate committee and were subsequently requested to consolidate their concerns into a single memorandum for the consideration of lawmakers, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission and other stakeholders.

The letter stated, “We represent State Regulatory Commissions/Bureaus that have taken advantage of the Electricity Act 2023 to commence the development of our sub-national electricity markets and sectors.

We are grateful for the audience you granted us to raise concerns on the ongoing consideration of the proposed Amendment Bill 2026 to the Electricity Act 2023.

“As agreed during our discussion, we have collated and consolidated the comments into one document which is hereby attached for the consideration of the Senate and House Committees on Power, NERC and other stakeholders.”

The state electricity regulators said they had identified 17 contentious provisions in the proposed amendments to the Electricity Act that they believed could undermine the constitutional powers already granted to states in the electricity sector.

According to the regulators, the areas of disagreement include the authorisation of State Houses of Assembly to legislate on electricity matters, the supremacy of state laws within state electricity markets, and provisions seeking to retain federal control over all activities connected to the national grid.

Other disputed clauses relate to restrictions on states’ participation in the wholesale electricity market, matters concerning the Nigerian Wholesale Electricity Market, the authority of states over independent transmission and distribution networks, and the establishment and administration of the Power Consumers Assistance Fund.

The regulators also raised concerns over the proposed expansion of the powers of the Nigerian Electricity Management Services Agency, the structure and decisions of the Forum of Electricity Regulators, and the provision granting the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission final administrative appellate jurisdiction on certain issues arising within the forum.

See also  States kick as Senate moves to amend Electricity Act; read details

They further opposed provisions designating electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply as essential services, as well as clauses dealing with government-owned enterprises as licensees and obligations to host communities.

Additional areas of contention include the regulation of intra-state electricity matters that may have implications for the national grid, the imposition of timelines and phased conditions for states transitioning into independent electricity markets, and proposed federal oversight on consumer protection, anti-trust measures and tariff design within state electricity jurisdictions.

The regulators argued that the disputed provisions require further consultation to ensure that the decentralisation objectives of the Electricity Act are not weakened by subsequent amendments.

“A review of the Bill suggests that the general intention is to reverse the devolution of legislative, governance and regulatory powers over electricity matters that occur solely within the respective states to the state governments, in favour of a reconsolidation of powers at the federal level, with the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission retaining full supervisory powers over the market. Effectively, it appears that the intention of the Bill is that Nigeria should continue with the same regime that, for 20 years, has not led to any significant increase in power availability or per capita consumption for Nigerians, despite ever-increasing (and unsustainable) federal debt.”

At the centre of the dispute is the interpretation of the constitutional amendments that allowed states to legislate on electricity matters within their territories. The regulators argued that the proposed amendment bill wrongly assumes that state legislatures derive their powers from the National Assembly rather than directly from the Constitution.

According to them, any attempt by the National Assembly to grant, restrict or redefine those powers through ordinary legislation would amount to a constitutional violation.

The memorandum stated, “Section 2 of the Bill aims to amend Section 2(2)(a)-(e) of the Principal Act. By that section, the National Assembly reserves to itself the power to delegate legislative powers to States’ Houses of Assembly, suggesting that the Bill (or the Principal Act) is the source of the powers of a state to make laws on its electricity markets.

“This provision is based on a shocking miscomprehension of Nigerian constitutional law—it proceeds from the wrong assumption that the NASS, by ordinary legislation and not constitutional amendment, can confer (or restrict) the legislative power of states.

“The constitutional division of powers is fundamental to federalism, ensuring a balance between national unity and state autonomy. There is no legal framework for the NASS to ‘empower’ state governments to make law by ordinary legislation, as the language of the Bill attempts to do.

“The constitutional division of powers is fundamental to federalism, ensuring a balance between national unity and state autonomy. There is no legal framework for the NASS to ‘empower’ state governments to make law by ordinary legislation, as the language of the Bill attempts to do. Consequently, Section 2 of the Bill, seeking to amend Section 2 of the Act, is not consistent with the Constitution.”

See also  N20bn Sukuk: TAJBank records 185.5% oversubscription

The regulators described as “a shocking miscomprehension of Nigerian constitutional law” the provisions of the bill that appear to suggest that the National Assembly is the source of states’ authority over electricity matters.

They warned that the proposed law could undermine the principle of federalism by weakening state autonomy. Beyond constitutional concerns, the regulators said the bill could create uncertainty in the electricity market and discourage investors who had already committed resources based on the existing legal framework.

“The clear intention behind the new drafting is to reconsolidate in the Federal Government matters solely within the state electricity markets which had been devolved to the states,” the memorandum stated.

“This will defeat the key objectives of the Electricity Act and the various states’ electricity laws, even before the regime introduced by them has taken any root. It will introduce avoidable disruption in the industry as significant investment decisions have already been taken based on the Electricity Act 2023, and these investments are now put at risk by this proposed amendment.”

The state regulators specifically faulted provisions relating to federal oversight of activities connected to the national grid, restrictions on state authority over wholesale electricity transactions, the proposed expansion of NERC’s powers and changes affecting mini-grids and independent distribution systems.

They argued that allowing NERC to retain overriding authority over electricity activities merely because they have some connection to the national grid would effectively render state powers meaningless.

The memorandum stated, “What is required, in order to attain the full benefits of the decentralisation of the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry that is the theme of the Fifth Alteration and provided for in the Principal Act, is proper coordination on transmission matters between NERC and state regulators, and not top-down federal legislation.”

The regulators also rejected provisions that would permit NERC to exercise final administrative appellate jurisdiction over disputes involving state electricity regulators. According to them, NERC and the SERCs are on equal standing within their respective constitutional spheres of authority.

“NERC and the SERCs are on equal standing within their respective constitutional spheres of authority,” the memorandum said. “The National Assembly cannot arrogate to NERC quasi-judicial authority over SERCs, especially where the dispute might be on a matter over which NERC has no authority.”

They further argued that the Constitution already vests judicial powers in the courts and that such responsibilities cannot be transferred to a regulatory agency. The proposed establishment of a Forum of Electricity Regulators also drew criticism.

Although the regulators acknowledged the importance of coordination among electricity regulators, they argued that participation in such arrangements should be voluntary rather than imposed through federal legislation.

See also  PENGASSAN backs NUPENG, threatens shutdown of Dangote refinery

“The better approach would be a Memorandum of Understanding or similar instrument jointly negotiated by all relevant regulatory bodies in which the principles of coordination and harmonisation will be agreed,” they said.

The state regulators equally opposed provisions declaring generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity as essential services covering both federal and state electricity markets.

According to them, such provisions could inadvertently expand NERC’s jurisdiction into areas already devolved to states, including tariff regulation. “The provision is invidious, regressive and should be expunged,” the memorandum stated.

The regulators also faulted proposals empowering NERC to determine contributions to the Power Consumers Assistance Fund from electricity consumers. They argued that since electricity tariffs and retail supply have become matters for state regulation, decisions relating to subsidies and customer contributions should similarly reside with state authorities.

Other contentious areas identified by the regulators included host community obligations, the role of the Nigerian Electricity Management Services Agency, licensing arrangements involving government-owned electricity enterprises and timelines for states transitioning into independent electricity markets.

The dispute highlights the growing tension between the Federal Government and states over the future structure of Nigeria’s electricity industry. The Electricity Act 2023 was enacted following the Fifth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, which removed electricity from the Exclusive Legislative List and empowered states to generate, transmit and distribute electricity within their territories.

Since then, several states have enacted electricity laws and established regulatory agencies to oversee emerging sub-national electricity markets. Lagos, Enugu, Ekiti, Ondo, Edo and other states have already commenced varying stages of implementation of their electricity reform programmes.

Energy experts have repeatedly described the decentralisation of the sector as a major opportunity to attract investment, improve efficiency and expand access to electricity. However, the latest amendment proposals appear to have reopened the debate over how regulatory powers should be shared between Abuja and the states.

As the National Assembly continues deliberations on the amendment bill, the position adopted by lawmakers could shape the future direction of Nigeria’s electricity reforms and determine whether the country deepens its experiment with decentralisation or returns to a more centralised regulatory model.

The Electricity Act 2023 was designed to operationalise the constitutional amendments that empowered states to participate directly in electricity generation, transmission and distribution within their boundaries. Since its enactment, several states have passed their own electricity laws and established regulatory commissions.

The proposed Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill 2026 seeks to amend several provisions of the principal legislation. However, state regulators contend that some of the proposed changes amount to an attempt to reverse the gains of decentralisation and restore broad federal control over the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Business

Africa urgently needs more fish farms, says UN

Published

on

Africa needs to urgently expand its fish-farming sector to meet its food needs, the head of the UN’s fisheries division said Tuesday, even as its latest report found record production levels globally.

Fish and seafood is now a $184-billion trade, according to the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), launched at the Our Ocean Conference in Kenya.

Fish-farming, or “aquaculture”, overtook traditional “capture” fishing as a source of food production in 2021 and has continued to grow — surpassing 100 million tonnes for the first time in 2024, the latest year for data.

But Africa is lagging behind the rest of the world, with only 18 percent of its fish coming from farms, compared to around half elsewhere.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s fish production will need to grow by 68 percent between now and 2050 to keep up with its rapidly growing population, the FAO said.

“It’s an opportunity waiting to be exploited… but it’s whether the timing is sufficiently fast to catch up with that demand,” Manuel Barange, director of the FAO’s fisheries division, told AFP.

“Aquaculture can actually be a game-changer,” he said. “If we manage to develop aquaculture in Africa, there’s a lot of opportunities.”

But governments urgently need to create regulations and incentives to attract investors, Barange added.

More than 700 different species of fish are raised for consumption on aquaculture farms around the world and the FAO argues it is a more predictable and sustainable approach than traditional fishing at sea.

See also  N20bn Sukuk: TAJBank records 185.5% oversubscription

It is also more manageable in the face of climate change, which is causing rapid changes in the volumes and locations of ocean fish.

Climate change is “a disruptor of everything that we do,” said Barange.

More work is also needed to reduce over-fishing: the report found that only 62 percent of global fisheries were sustainably fished.

The 11th edition of the Our Ocean Conference began in the Kenyan port city of Mombasa on Tuesday — its first time in Africa — bringing together politicians, NGOs, investors and innovators.

Since its first edition in 2014, organisers boast that it has led to more than 2,900 commitments valued at over $169 billion, covering marine conservation, sustainable fisheries, climate adaptation, security and pollution reduction.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending