By AProf Chukwuemeka Ifegwu Eke
Dr. Enyinnaya Duke Ako-Atulomah, thank you for your considered response, your acknowledgement of the official documents and your Sunday goodwill. Happy Sunday to you too.
Your acceptance that financial records are available has moved this discussion forward. Your recognition that budget underperformance does not automatically establish wrongdoing is equally welcome.
The Abia State administration accepts scrutiny. But scrutiny must examine the financing structure, the expenditure record, the history of implementation and the projects delivered. Repeatedly stating that publication is insufficient does not answer the evidence already presented.
ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIRES THE WHOLE RECORD.
- THE ₦900.28 BILLION BUDGET WAS NOT ₦900.28 BILLION IN CASH
You ask why expenditure of approximately ₦409.56 billion fell substantially below the final budget of ₦900.28 billion. The starting point is the financing framework.
The official third-quarter 2025 report explains that the original ₦750.28 billion expenditure plan was revised to ₦900.28 billion. It also identifies projected borrowing of approximately:
- ₦248.55 billion domestically.
- ₦226.60 billion internationally.
- ₦475.14 billion combined.
That combined borrowing projection represented approximately 52.8% of the revised expenditure envelope, calculated from those figures.
An analysis of implementation that concentrates on FAAC and IGR while overlooking financing of that magnitude is incomplete.
“OFFICIAL Q3 REPORT: REVISED BUDGET AND FINANCING FRAMEWORK” (https://abiastate.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/BIR3-C-BPR-Publication-Template-October-2025-Publication-final-1.pdf)
The fourth-quarter report records approximately ₦12.52 billion against the ₦226.60 billion international borrowing provision—about 5.5%, leaving approximately ₦214.07 billion unrealised under that heading.
That is a material financing shortfall. It does not explain every delayed project, and it does not establish why each proposed financing arrangement was unrealised. But it provides a substantial part of the financial context missing from your argument.
The administration could not spend projected financing as though it were cash already received.
“OFFICIAL Q4 REPORT: ACTUAL RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE” (https://abiastate.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Abia-State-BIR4-C-BPR-Publication-TemplateTeamIb-4th-Quarter-CR.pdf)
- FAAC OUTPERFORMANCE DID NOT CANCEL THE OTHER SHORTFALLS
Using the rounded figures in this exchange:
- FAAC exceeded its projection by approximately ₦47.19 billion.
- IGR fell below its target by approximately ₦53.77 billion.
Taken together, those two variances produce a net shortfall of approximately ₦6.58 billion, before considering other revenue and financing categories. This is a calculation from the reported FAAC and IGR figures.
Therefore, “FAAC exceeded its target” cannot serve as a complete explanation of the state’s financing capacity.
The IGR shortfall must be examined. Equally, the additional FAAC receipts must not be treated as though they eliminated the IGR gap, the international financing gap and every other funding constraint.
Each revenue stream must be assessed against its own projection, and the combined financing position must then be examined.
- CAPITAL EXECUTION AND CAPITAL PRIORITY BOTH MATTER
You acknowledge that the approximately 78.6% capital share of actual expenditure was correctly calculated. You also correctly distinguish that measure from the approximately 46% execution of the capital budget.
There is no disagreement on the arithmetic.
The two measures answer different questions:
- Capital budget execution asks how much of the approved capital provision was spent.
- Capital expenditure share asks how actual spending was distributed between capital and recurrent purposes.
The first exposes an implementation gap. The second shows that capital expenditure dominated the reported spending mix. Both belong in a fair assessment.
The administration does not claim that classifying expenditure as capital automatically proves value for money. But critics cannot acknowledge the classification only to dismiss its relevance completely.
An implementation shortfall deserves explanation. A substantial commitment to capital investment also deserves recognition.
- WHAT DID THE PEOPLE GET? START WITH NAMED PROJECTS
Your central question—what did Ndi Abia receive for the money spent—is legitimate. There are identifiable projects against which that question can be tested.
The official commissioning record dated June 11, 2025 identifies:
- The 8.3-kilometre Isieketa–Obikabia Road in Isiala Ngwa South.
- The 1.5-kilometre IBB Way in Umuahia North.
- Retrofitted primary healthcare centres at Owerinta, Amibo and Ekeoba, across three local government areas.
These are named facilities and roads with locations and a dated commissioning record. Citizens can inspect them. The administration’s claim is sufficiently specific to be tested.
“OFFICIAL RECORD: ROADS AND HEALTHCARE FACILITIES COMMISSIONED IN ABIA CENTRAL” (https://abiastate.gov.ng/protect-our-infrastructure-gov-otti-charges-abians-commissions-phcs-roads-in-abia-central/)
There is also evidence outside the government’s own publication. In its July 8, 2025 investors’ forum account, Julius Berger identifies the full reconstruction of Port Harcourt Road, Aba, among its infrastructure work. That is a statement from the executing contractor, not merely an endorsement from a political appointee.
“JULIUS BERGER’S OWN PROJECT ACCOUNT” (https://www.julius-berger.com/press/julius-berger-reaffirms-resilience-long-term-value-at-2025-investors-forum)
A contractor’s account is not an independent value-for-money audit. It nevertheless corroborates the existence of an identifiable construction intervention.
Further scrutiny of cost and quality is legitimate. Ignoring the delivered infrastructure is not a balanced assessment.
- THE HEALTHCARE RECORD HAS A TIMELINE
The administration flagged off the reconstruction and remodelling of 200 primary healthcare facilities across the state’s 184 wards on January 20, 2025.
“OFFICIAL RECORD: JANUARY 2025 HEALTHCARE PROGRAMME FLAG-OFF” (https://abiastate.gov.ng/quality-healthcare-as-the-foundation-of-everything/)
The June commissioning record identifies particular completed facilities. A subsequent official July 2025 account reported 138 facilities completely retrofitted, with 62 remaining in that 200-facility programme. These are dated government progress statements, not a claim that every facility was completed at the initial deadline.
This history matters. It distinguishes programme initiation, identified commissioning and later progress reporting.
Completion, staffing, utilisation and health outcomes remain separate measures. The administration’s record should be examined across all of them. But the existence of further questions does not invalidate the facilities already identified.
- THERE IS A PUBLISHED EXPLANATION OF THE REVENUE POLICY
During the May 12, 2026 meeting with BudgIT, Governor Otti explained that the administration had not pursued aggressive IGR extraction during its first three years because of the economic structure it inherited. His position connected taxation to prosperity created within the population.
“OFFICIAL RECORD: OTTI’S REVENUE POLICY EXPLANATION AND BUDGIT ENGAGEMENT” (https://abiastate.gov.ng/gov-otti-reaffirms-commitment-to-fiscal-transparency-as-abia-moves-from-17th-to-4th-in-budgit-states-performance-report-in-two-years/)
That explanation does not quantify how much of the IGR shortfall arose from policy choices, forecasting, collection weaknesses or economic conditions. It does establish that an explanation of the administration’s revenue approach is already on record.
Citizens may challenge that approach. They should first represent it accurately.
- GOVERNANCE HISTORY MUST BE USED RESPONSIBLY
Governor Otti assumed office in May 2023. The financial and physical condition of the state at that point is relevant to evaluating subsequent expenditure.
The administration’s published May 2025 update reported that over ₦40 billion had been committed to inherited salary and pension arrears. That is the administration’s reported figure and should be assessed against the relevant payment records.
“OFFICIAL MAY 2025 UPDATE: ARREARS AND SECTOR INTERVENTIONS” (https://abiastate.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ABSG-MONTHLY-UPDATE-MAY-EDITION-2025_compressed.pdf)
Settling arrears produces a different public benefit from constructing a road, but it remains a benefit: payment of obligations to workers and pensioners.
Historical liabilities do not excuse present shortcomings. They help explain the competing demands on public resources. An assessment that counts only newly built assets will miss part of what public expenditure is intended to accomplish.
- THE AUDIT CERTIFICATE WAS NEVER PRESENTED AS IMMUNITY
The earlier response expressly stated that the Auditor-General’s opinion was subject to observations in the report. It did not declare every transaction beyond scrutiny.
“2024 ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL’S REPORT AND AUDIT CERTIFICATE” (https://abiastate.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Abia-State-Report-of-the-Accountant-General-for-the-year-ended-31-12-2024-for-publication-Fina-1.pdf)
You now ask which observations were raised and what corrective actions followed. That requires examination of the actual observations and the corresponding responses. Neither side should invent those findings or imply that the certificate proves more than it says.
Identify the observation, its amount where applicable, the responsible institution and the response required. Then the discussion can address a concrete issue.
- AIRPORT AND TRANSPORT QUESTIONS MUST REMAIN PROJECT-SPECIFIC
The administration’s defence of development does not authorise anyone to invent airport completion percentages, procurement costs, passenger numbers or compensation totals.
Those claims require the appropriate records.
But requests for those records must also remain distinct from conclusions about misconduct. You appropriately state that the information supplied does not establish that any particular project was mismanaged. That qualification should remain prominent throughout the debate.
An operational bus count is different from an announced delivery target. A certified construction milestone is different from visible activity. A payment certificate is different from an appropriation.
Those distinctions apply equally to government claims and criticisms.
Dr. Ako-Atulomah, your engagement is appreciated. The Abia State administration will defend its record with figures, named projects, dated implementation accounts and identifiable sources.
This response has supplied financing context, expenditure distinctions, a published revenue-policy explanation, commissioning records, contractor corroboration and the history of inherited obligations. It does not pretend that these materials settle every procurement or audit question.
Accountability must examine the shortfalls and the delivery together. Ndi Abia deserve explanations for unmet targets—and an honest acknowledgement of the work their resources have produced.
AProf Chukwuemeka Ifegwu Eke
