Follow Us on Google
By Ebuka Ezekiel
Last Sunday, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, made a series of controversial remarks that have drawn significant public attention, not for their substance, but for their startling disregard for economic realities and the workings of Nigeria’s fiscal federalism.
Kalu while speaking during a meeting with his pro-groups, including the Renewed Hope Initiative of the President, Renewed Hope Partners, and the Ben Kalu Movement, among more than 27 other groups powered by the Ben Kalu Foundation, attributed what he termed a “miracle” in the states to President Bola Tinubu’s “release of money” to governors.
In his remarks whose video clip has gone viral, the Deputy Speaker suggested that President Tinubu is the “real miracle worker” for removing fuel subsidy and making funds available to state governments.
Describing Tinubu as “the miracle worker,” Kalu added: “The miracle worker is the President who releases money to the states. Up until now, the real miracle worker is the man who stopped oil subsidy and did not keep the money in his pocket or keep it in a boot, but releases it to the states. That is a right miracle worker.”
He added: “This administration might be my friend, the leader, but I am opposition leader in the state, and as opposition leader, I must speak for the masses. You cannot be getting the kind of money you are getting, and you are doing the job that former governors did with the less they were getting.
“The former governors got very less than N4bn or N5bn, and today, Tinubu has released N38bn, N40bn, and you want us, in all fairness, to compare you with the N38bn to N40bn against N5.6bn. The APC will take over this state. And you know why? It is so that what is given from Abuja will get to your ward.”
While it is not unusual for politicians to engage in partisan flattery, especially in Nigeria’s heated political atmosphere, Kalu’s comments are a textbook example of how political rhetoric can distort facts and misinform the public. His claim that Tinubu “released money” to the states is not only misleading, but it also undermines the constitutional and institutional framework that governs revenue sharing in Nigeria.
The Northwest is a microcosm of Nigeria’s youth challenges and opportunities. It is a region abound with barriers like unemployment, banditry, substance abuse, and out-of-school children. Yet the Northwest possesses a rich history of political consciousness, entrepreneurship, and civic engagement.
The workings of the Federation Account in Nigeria are guided primarily by Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
Specifically, Section 162 provides that “The Federation shall maintain a special account to be called ‘the Federation Account’ into which shall be paid all revenues collected by the Government of the Federation.”
Flowing from this, the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), chaired by the Minister of Finance was set up and it meets monthly to determine how much each tier of government — federal, state, and local — receives.
FAAC is not a presidential handout mechanism. It is composed of all 36 state commissioners of finance, accountants-general, and representatives of key revenue-generating bodies such as the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), the Nigeria Customs Service, and the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC).
Decisions at FAAC are collective, based on revenues earned and shared according to a pre-agreed formula enshrined in the constitution.
The federation account is currently being managed on a legal framework that allows funds to be shared under three major components – statutory allocation, Value Added Tax distribution, and allocation made under the derivation principle.
Under statutory allocation, the federal government gets 52.68 per cent of the revenue shared; states, 26.72 per cent; and local governments, 20.60 per cent.
The framework also provides that VAT revenue be shared thus: the FG, 15 per cent; states, 50 per cent; and the LGs, 35 per cent.
Similarly, extra allocation is given to the oil producing states based on the 13 per cent derivation principle.
To, therefore, suggest, as Kalu did, that Tinubu personally “released” money to the states is factually incorrect and fundamentally misleading. If anything, it diminishes the institutional processes and collective governance structures that exist to ensure transparency and accountability in Nigeria’s revenue sharing.
Subsidy Removal Was A Collective Decision Of NEC, Not Tinubu’s ‘Miracle’
Another major flaw in Kalu’s speech is his attempt to credit President Tinubu as the “miracle worker” who removed the fuel subsidy and thus “freed” money for the states. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
The removal of fuel subsidy was not a spontaneous or unilateral action by Tinubu. It was a collective decision of the National Economic Council (NEC), a constitutional body made up of all the 36 state governors, the Central Bank Governor, and other top economic managers, chaired by the Vice President of Nigeria.
The decision to remove the subsidy had long been on Nigeria’s policy agenda for years due to its unsustainable fiscal burden. In fact, several previous administrations had attempted to phase it out but faced political resistance.
What Tinubu did was merely to implement a decision whose time had come, one that had already been collectively endorsed by state governors across party lines. Every governor in Nigeria, including those from the South East, was aware that the continuation of fuel subsidies was draining national revenue and making meaningful investment in infrastructure and human capital nearly impossible.
For instance, at the 28th Nigerian Economic Summit held in 2022, the then Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki and his Gombe State counterpart, Inuwa Yahaya, had led the call for the federal government to urgently discontinue the unsustainable fuel subsidy regime.
El-Rufai noted that governors and federal government officials, via the National Economic Council (NEC), agreed in September 2021 to remove the subsidy.
He also said the National Economic Council, NEC, envisaged that without removing the subsidy, a time would come when the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL, would say the nation’s entire monthly oil earnings had been spent on subsidy.
El-Rufai had said: “The framers of our constitution envisaged that for the economy to work well, there should be a level of coordination between the federal and state governments
“That was why the National Economic Council was created, with the Vice President as Chairman. All 36 governors are members and some federal government officials like the Minister of Finance.
“We have met religiously, almost every month, because we have only one economy.
“I think if NEC decisions were faithfully implemented by the national government, some of the current economic issues will not arise – because NGF provided technical support to study this subsidy issue when it started looming and at N800bn.
‘We envisaged at that point that a time would come when the NNPC would come to FAAC and say guys, we need cheque from you to cover for subsidy- not to contribute but to say we are spending more than we are receiving from crude oil. That time has come.
“We took a decision to remove subsidy in September 2021. The Minister of Finance also agreed. We agreed that the money from there should be channelled into health, education and infrastructure.”
For the Deputy Speaker to present Tinubu as a lone “miracle maker” in this process is to erase the role of the NEC and the consensus of the 36 states that form the federation. It is also an insult to the spirit of federalism that Nigeria’s constitution seeks to uphold.
Facts vs Politics: Kalu’s misleading comparison of state revenues:
Kalu’s most politically charged statement, however, was his attempt to compare current state allocations to those of previous years — citing figures such as N38bn versus N4bn and using that to question what the current governors, particularly Abia’s Governor Alex Otti, have achieved with these funds.
The logic here is deeply flawed. First, the increase in monthly FAAC allocations to the states is largely due to the removal of fuel subsidy and exchange rate reforms, which have boosted nominal revenue inflows. However, this increase is not real growth in purchasing power. Inflation has soared to over 20 per cent, the naira has weakened significantly, and the cost of public projects and services has multiplied several times over.
So, using nominal figures to make a direct comparison between past and present performances is economically dishonest and deliberately misleading.
Secondly, Otti’s administration in Abia, by all objective measures, has made visible progress in areas where previous governments failed — from road infrastructure to sanitation, public sector reforms, and debt transparency.
In his first two years in office, Otti has focused on rebuilding the state through fiscal discipline, infrastructure renewal, education, healthcare, and governance reforms. His administration spent over N40bn clearing inherited salary and pension arrears, ensuring prompt payment of workers and retirees by the 28th of every month.
On infrastructure, more than 230 roads have been repaired or reconstructed, including the Port Harcourt Road, Ohanku, and Obohia Roads in Aba, as well as the six-lane Aguiyi Ironsi Boulevard in Umuahia. The Omenuko Bridge on the Bende-Ohafia road and an Abia Airport project are also underway.
In education, Otti introduced free basic education and recruited over 5,300 teachers, with “smart schools” being built across all 17 LGAs. More than N1bn has been disbursed to empower 10,000 nano-businesses. Over 100 primary healthcare centres have been renovated, alongside general hospitals and specialist facilities.
Two years on, his administration is widely credited with restoring confidence, transparency, and a sense of progress in Abia State.
Even President Tinubu attested to this fact just last Friday during his state visit to Abia State and grand reception in Aba, where he commissioned the reconstructed Port Harcourt Road and seven other road clusters.
Tinubu commended the Abia governor for his “wave of infrastructural restoration,” describing him as “a sound economist and very experienced leader who has set the state on a path of prosperity.”
For Kalu to now compare Otti’s performance with that of past governors of the State is a political cheap shot unworthy of someone of a Deputy Speaker’s stature.
The need for responsibility, clarity in political communication:
As Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Kalu occupies a position that demands decorum, responsibility, and intellectual rigour. His words carry weight beyond political rallies; they shape public perception and influence discourse at the national level. For such a high-ranking lawmaker to peddle half-truths about how Nigeria’s fiscal system operates is disappointing and dangerous.
Ben Kalu’s remarks reflect a broader problem within Nigeria’s political culture, the elevation of rhetoric over reason, and loyalty over logic. While it is understandable that politicians may want to show allegiance to their party leader, it becomes problematic when such allegiance crosses into the realm of misinformation.
Politicians, particularly those in leadership positions, must learn to separate politics from facts. It is one thing to campaign or promote one’s party; it is another to distort verifiable economic processes to score political points. Nigeria’s democracy will only deepen when its leaders begin to engage citizens with truth and clarity rather than flattery and propaganda.
The truth is that Nigeria’s financial system is designed to prevent exactly what Kalu is suggesting which is the idea that one man, no matter how powerful, can arbitrarily “release” money to the states. That would be dictatorship, not democracy. The processes of NEC and FAAC exist precisely to ensure that revenue sharing is transparent, accountable, and shielded from political manipulation.
Subsidy removal was a collective, not a personal, decision. Revenue allocation is a constitutional process, not a presidential favour. Performance at the state level should be judged by context, not by careless comparison of figures.
For a man of Kalu’s standing, the expectation is higher. Nigeria needs leaders who speak with integrity, who educate rather than mislead, and who can separate politics from governance. Anything less only undermines the democratic ideals they swore to uphold.
• Ebuka Ezekiel, a Public Affairs Analyst wrote from Abuja.
