States Receive N435bn funds for Security, Infrastructure

State governments across Nigeria recorded at least N435.25bn in revenue for security and infrastructure between January and June 2026, according to an analysis of available half-year budget reports from 29 states.

The funds were recorded through a special Federation Account Allocation Committee revenue window classified in state financial records as State Infrastructure and Security. The funding is separate from the regular statutory allocation received by states, although it is distributed through FAAC.

No funds were recorded under the same revenue line during the corresponding period of 2025.

The analysis was based on first and second-quarter budget performance reports obtained from Open Nigerian States, a platform supported by BudgIT that provides access to government financial data.

The special funding comes at a time when state governments are facing increased pressure to tackle insecurity and improve basic infrastructure. Several parts of the country continue to deal with kidnapping, banditry and attacks on communities, while many states also require better roads, schools, hospitals, water systems and other public facilities.

Of the 32 states for which relevant financial information was available, 16 reported a combined N265.50bn specifically under the State Infrastructure and Security revenue category.

Another 13 states recorded a total of N169.75bn under other separately reported FAAC-related revenue categories. Their financial documents did not directly describe the funds as infrastructure and security allocations.

When the two groups were combined, the identifiable revenue received by the 29 states came to N435.25bn.

Adamawa, Anambra and Oyo did not record actual receipts under the dedicated infrastructure and security line during the six-month period. However, Adamawa and Anambra had made provisions for the funding in their budgets, while Oyo had expected an allocation of N8bn.

Akwa Ibom was also reviewed, but its available half-year financial report did not state the amount received under the infrastructure and security component.

Bayelsa, Edo, Osun and Rivers were not included in the calculation because the required data was not available.

Enugu recorded the largest amount among the states that separately disclosed the infrastructure and security revenue, with N27.02bn received during the period. Gombe followed with N24.50bn.

Jigawa, Katsina and Ogun each recorded N19.50bn, while Cross River and Yobe received N17.50bn each. Borno recorded N16.41bn, while Bauchi received N14.58bn.

Ebonyi, Imo, Kano, Kwara and Taraba each recorded N14bn. Sokoto received N12.50bn, while Kogi recorded N7bn.

When other FAAC-related revenue categories were considered, Ondo recorded N31.86bn and Lagos received N30.30bn. Abia reported N24.50bn, Nasarawa received N21.24bn, and Niger recorded N15.50bn.

Benue and Plateau each recorded N14bn, while Delta received N5.50bn. Ekiti recorded N5.38bn, Kaduna N3.83bn, Kebbi N1.95bn and Zamfara N1.71bn.

The available figures show that the 16 states with clearly identified infrastructure and security receipts accounted for about 61 per cent of the N435.25bn total. The remaining 39 per cent came from the 13 states that listed the money under other FAAC-related revenue headings.

The N435.25bn also represents about 10 per cent of the N4.55tn in federation allocations received by the states with available half-year records. It is also about 20.7 per cent of the N2.10tn generated internally by those states during the same period.

Compared with the combined N6.65tn received through FAAC and internally generated revenue, the special funding accounted for about 6.55 per cent.

Gombe recorded a particularly high performance against its budget estimate. The state received N24.50bn despite budgeting N5bn for the full year, meaning its six-month receipts were already far above the annual projection.

Bauchi received N14.58bn against a yearly provision of N16.84bn. Jigawa recorded 65 per cent of its N30bn annual estimate, while Yobe received N17.50bn against a budget of N36.49bn.

Ogun recorded N19.50bn out of its N51.28bn projection, while Enugu received N27.02bn compared with its N80bn annual budget.

Borno recorded N16.41bn against a N49.44bn provision, while Katsina received N19.50bn from a projected N60.27bn. Kwara recorded N14bn against N49.62bn, while Kano received N14bn from its N61.07bn estimate.

Kogi received N7bn compared with its N39.19bn annual provision. Taraba recorded N14bn against N80.70bn, while Ebonyi received N14bn from its N88.41bn projection.

Sokoto recorded N12.50bn against a revised annual estimate of N90bn.

Adamawa and Anambra recorded no receipts under the dedicated revenue category despite budgeting N35.23bn and N10bn respectively. Their performance under the specific funding line therefore stood at zero by the end of June.

Cross River and Imo recorded N17.50bn and N14bn respectively, but the available reports did not provide enough information to determine their performance against annual budget targets.

Economists have said the increased flow of funds to state governments could support development if properly managed. They also called for stronger transparency and public monitoring to ensure the money is used for its intended purposes.

The funding arrangement dates back to the Infrastructure Support Fund approved by President Bola Tinubu for the 36 states in July 2023, following the removal of the petrol subsidy. The scheme was designed to strengthen the ability of state governments to invest in areas such as roads, agriculture, healthcare, education, electricity and water.

The additional funding has since become another source of revenue for state governments as they deal with rising demands for public services.

The development also comes as states receive larger allocations following changes to the country’s fiscal system. Several governors have publicly acknowledged that improved revenues have given their administrations greater capacity to undertake infrastructure projects.

However, the amount eventually received by each state varies, and some states recorded large differences between their budget estimates and actual receipts during the first half of the year.

The use of the funds is therefore expected to remain an important issue, particularly as state governments face pressure to improve security while delivering roads, schools, hospitals, water projects and other services.

The actual benefit to residents will depend on how the money is managed, the projects selected by each state and the level of transparency provided on how the funds are spent.