In a significant financial intervention aimed at improving subnational infrastructure and security across Nigeria, the Federal Government has disbursed a total of ₦1.6 trillion to all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) between March 2024 and May 2025, official documents from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) reveal.
The funds, channelled through a special intervention programme from non-oil revenue savings, were part of efforts to alleviate infrastructural decay and address security lapses nationwide. The disbursement came under the Infrastructure Support Fund (ISF) announced by President Bola Tinubu in July 2023, shortly after the controversial removal of petrol subsidy.
According to internal records presented at the May 2025 Federation Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC) meeting, the Federal Government had saved ₦1.7 trillion in non-oil revenue over 15 months, from which ₦1.6 trillion was disbursed to states and the FCT, leaving a balance of ₦100 billion as of May 16, 2025.
The payments were structured as monthly tranches—mostly ₦100 billion—with a notable peak of ₦222 billion disbursed in May 2024. The first tranche of ₦200 billion was made in March 2024 to cover January and February allocations. These payments were categorised as “Payment for Intervention to States and FCT,” while their funding sources were marked as “Transfer from Non-Oil Savings.”
This structured intervention was expected to fast-track development in critical sectors, including transportation, agriculture, healthcare, basic education, power, and water resources. However, questions surrounding the actual utilisation of the funds have begun to surface, sparking public concerns about accountability and transparency in state spending.
Despite the scale of disbursement, the OAGF’s document failed to detail how much each state received or whether the amounts were separate from the usual monthly revenue allocations.
Critics, especially from civil society organisations, have begun raising alarms over the seeming disconnect between the vast financial outlay and visible development outcomes.
In an interview with our correspondent, Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, lamented what he described as “financial recklessness” and a breakdown in responsible governance across all tiers.
According to Rafsanjani, “We are in the era of collapse of responsible governance and lack of accountability. The ₦1.6 trillion disbursed should have translated into improved security, better healthcare, functional education, and critical infrastructure, but what we see is a continued deterioration in those areas.”
He further criticised the political elite for allegedly prioritising preparations for the 2027 general elections over national development. “Right now, the only preoccupation is 2027. Wherever they can make money to invest in the election, they will. It is at the expense of development,” Rafsanjani added.
The ISF was initially introduced to cushion the impact of the subsidy removal and rising inflation by enabling states to invest directly in people-centered projects. At the time, the Presidency assured Nigerians that the fund would bridge developmental gaps and complement other fiscal reform initiatives, including exchange rate unification and inflation control.
A statement by then Special Adviser to the President on Special Duties, Communications and Strategy, Dele Alake, had explained that the savings from the monthly distributable pool would help prevent excess liquidity from spiking inflation. “These savings will complement the efforts of the ISF and ensure that the subsidy removal translates into tangible improvements in the lives of Nigerians,” Alake said.
Despite these intentions, observers note that the effects of the intervention remain largely intangible. Reports of infrastructural breakdowns, insecurity, and delayed state-level projects persist, raising doubts about the judicious application of the ₦1.6tn.
The development also rekindles debate around fiscal federalism, financial autonomy, and accountability mechanisms for state governments, many of whom receive significant allocations from the centre but deliver little in terms of service delivery.
As Nigeria continues to grapple with economic uncertainty, rising debt, and inflation, calls for transparency in public spending are likely to intensify—especially with the 2027 electoral season approaching. Civil society groups and development experts insist that unless a framework is enforced to monitor and evaluate the use of intervention funds, the country risks missing yet another opportunity for meaningful grassroots development.