Governor Oyebanji’s BudgIT No. 1 ranking celebrates disclosure, but beneath the polished scorecards lies a deeper contradiction: open books masking closed power
Governor Biodun Oyebanji’s position as No. 1 on BudgIT’s State Fiscal Transparency League for five consecutive quarters has been widely celebrated. This is seen as evidence of prudent, accountable governance in Ekiti State.
On the surface, the accolade appears well-deserved. Yet, beneath the applause lies a deeper fiscal contradiction that demands scrutiny. This exposes the limits of transparency without genuine decentralisation.
A core policy question arises: Can a state justifiably claim fiscal leadership while maintaining authority over local government funds in contravention of a Supreme Court decision?
What BudgIT Actually Measures — and What It Does Not
BudgIT’s State Fiscal Transparency League serves as a procedural transparency index, evaluating whether states follow proper procedures for public financial disclosure. Specifically, it checks whether states publish budgets on time, release budget implementation reports, make audited financial statements accessible, and comply with fiscal disclosure standards. Thus, BudgIT rewards openness of information, not the sharing of decision-making control over finances.
In this sense, Ekiti’s top ranking may be technically correct. The state publishes its financial documents, maintains relatively clear fiscal records, and meets the benchmarks BudgIT tracks.
However, transparency in state accounts does not necessarily ensure fiscal justice, nor does it guarantee adherence to constitutional norms.
The Supreme Court Verdict: Substance Over Paperwork
The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Local Government Financial Autonomy was unambiguous in intent. It aimed to end the long-standing practice by which state governments control local government funds through mechanisms such as Joint Allocation Accounts—special accounts in which state and local government revenues are pooled and disbursed centrally—and other bureaucratic delays.
The ruling was not about better reporting; it was about restoring local governments as a functional third tier of government, capable of receiving, managing, and accounting for their funds independently.
If state governments persist in centrally managing local government funds, regardless of the quality of the documentation, they effectively contravene the intent of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Central Paradox: Open Books, Closed Power
Ekiti’s fiscal paradox becomes clear here. A state can be transparent on paper while still keeping fiscal authority at the centre. The books can be opened. Yet, real power can remain closed to the grassroots.
In Ekiti’s case, reports persist that local government chairmen do not exercise unfettered control over statutory allocations. There are allegations that they cannot independently execute a project of more than N2 million. Reports suggest councillors earn barely above ₦100,000 monthly, with chairmen unable to approve projects beyond ₦2 million — a stark reminder that fiscal openness does not equal grassroots empowerment.
If true, then what exists is not fiscal federalism, but what might be described as technocratic transparency masking structural centralisation.
When Rankings Become Political Shields
A problem arises when a narrow metric grows into a broad political claim. BudgIT’s ranking measures disclosure. But it is often used to imply broader democratic virtues, such as fiscal autonomy and grassroots empowerment. These are things it does not actually measure.
This is not BudgIT’s failure. It is a failure of political framing. Transparency scores should not act as halo certificates that shield governments from constitutional and governance questions.
Given these political implications, we must now ask: transparency for whom?
A deeper governance inquiry must ask uncomfortable questions:
Is transparency for citizens or for scorecards? Is there transparency of state spending but opacity in the release of local funds? Does data availability exist without matching decision-making autonomy?
If local governments cannot independently plan, allocate resources, and report directly to their constituents, transparency remains centralised rather than broadly democratic.
Global Lessons: Transparency Is Not Enough
Globally, best-practice governance systems separate two principles:
Transparency — the visibility of financial information
Autonomy — the authority to make and execute fiscal decisions
One principle does not automatically produce the other. Nigeria’s governance problem is not a lack of reports or dashboards; it is a lack of power diffusion.
For instance, Brazil’s municipal system offers a clear contrast: local governments receive federal transfers directly into their accounts, without state mediation, and are empowered to plan and execute budgets independently. This model demonstrates how fiscal transparency gains real meaning only when paired with genuine autonomy.
The Bottom Line
While Governor Oyebanji’s BudgIT ranking is valid on procedural grounds, it is incomplete from a democratic standpoint. Fiscal leadership should be judged not only by transparency but also by adherence to constitutional devolution of fiscal authority.
Until Ekiti’s local governments possess full authority to manage their funds independently, without intermediary control, characterisations of fiscal excellence will remain incomplete from a policy perspective.
Transparency without corresponding autonomy should not be regarded as reform, but rather as an exercise in centralised control.
