Akwa Ibom and Rivers states were excluded from a major assessment of Nigeria’s post-subsidy state finances after incomplete budget implementation data prevented their inclusion in the analysis.

The assessment, conducted by BudgIT, reviewed the financial performance of 34 states and compared their fiscal positions during the period before and after the removal of petrol subsidy. The organisation relied on budget implementation records to examine how states managed revenue and expenditure during the period under review.

The absence of Akwa Ibom and Rivers means the report does not provide a complete picture of fiscal developments across Nigeria’s 36 states.

The two states are significant to any assessment of Nigeria’s subnational finances. Both are located in the oil-producing Niger Delta and have traditionally received substantial allocations from the Federation Account.

BudgIT’s review comes against the backdrop of a major increase in funds available to state governments following the removal of petrol subsidy. The change substantially altered the revenue environment for the states, with monthly allocations rising significantly from the levels recorded before the reform.

However, the organisation’s analysis focuses not only on the volume of money available to states but also on how their revenue structures changed.

One of the notable findings was the sharp increase in total state revenue during the post-subsidy period. BusinessDay, reporting the BudgIT findings, said state revenues rose substantially during the period, although the growth varied considerably between individual states.

The report also examined internally generated revenue and personnel expenditure, providing a basis for comparing the capacity of individual states to raise funds locally.

The findings showed wide differences between states. Some governments recorded stronger growth in internally generated revenue, while others remained heavily reliant on allocations from the Federation Account.

Lagos was among the strongest performers in internally generated revenue, while several other states recorded significant increases from their pre-reform levels.

The analysis also highlighted the difficulty of evaluating state performance without consistent fiscal records.

Budget implementation reports are important because approved budgets alone do not reveal how much money governments actually received or spent. Implementation documents provide information about revenue realised, expenditure incurred and the extent to which approved plans were executed.

The exclusion of Akwa Ibom and Rivers therefore has implications beyond the two states themselves. It creates a gap in a national comparison intended to measure the effect of one of Nigeria’s most significant economic reforms.

The development also comes at a time when transparency organisations are placing greater emphasis on the publication of state financial information.

BudgIT operates a state fiscal data platform that provides access to budgets, implementation reports, procurement information and other financial documents.

Akwa Ibom, meanwhile, maintains official budget and financial reporting platforms, with budget documents publicly available.

For the current assessment, however, the available implementation information did not meet the requirements for inclusion.

The omission means comparisons involving all 36 states will require more complete and standardised reporting from the two affected states.

For researchers, policymakers and citizens, the issue underscores the importance of timely financial disclosure. Without comparable data, it becomes harder to determine how economic reforms are affecting individual states and whether increased public resources are translating into stronger public finances.

The BudgIT assessment therefore offers useful insight into the changing financial position of Nigerian states while leaving two important oil-producing states outside the national comparison.