By Paul Omo Okojie

The argument that Edo State requires a more consolidated approach to public revenue management is, on the surface, difficult to dispute. Government revenue should not be dispersed across multiple accounts managed by ministries, departments, agencies, and parastatals without effective central oversight. Every naira collected in the name of Edo State belongs to the people and must be properly accounted for.

However, a more fundamental question confronts Governor Monday Okpebholo’s administration:

What has become of Edo State’s finances since the administration assumed office in November 2024, and to what extent has the revenue accrued translated into tangible improvements in the lives of Edo people?

That question cannot be answered merely by announcing the establishment of a Revenue Consolidation Account.

The public deserves a comprehensive and transparent account of the state’s finances. Citizens deserve to know what has been collected, what has been expended, what has been borrowed, what has been committed to ongoing projects, and what remains available for government operations.

This is particularly important because available official figures do not support the suggestion that Edo State’s internally generated revenue has declined under the present administration. In fact, the data suggests otherwise.

Under former Governor Godwin Obaseki, internally generated revenue recorded steady growth. The Edo State Internal Revenue Service reported that the state generated ₦62.08 billion in 2023, representing an increase of approximately ₦17 billion over the previous year.

By 2024, official financial records indicated further growth. The state’s audited financial statements reflected operating revenue of approximately ₦448.72 billion, with internally generated revenue, taxation, and other local sources contributing significantly to total earnings.

The key point is that Edo State entered the current administration with an established revenue framework and a growing IGR base.

By 2025, the state’s Budget Implementation Report indicated that internally generated revenue had risen to approximately ₦98.45 billion.

If revenue has increased, then the discussion should no longer focus solely on whether the government is generating sufficient funds.

The more pertinent question is: Where is the money being allocated?

That is a question Edo people are fully entitled to ask. There is often a tendency for governments to present administrative reforms as achievements in themselves. The creation of a new account, the closure of existing accounts, the appointment of revenue consultants, or the introduction of new collection mechanisms may all constitute administrative improvements.

However, none of these automatically translates into improved governance outcomes. The true measure of fiscal management lies in what citizens can see, experience, and independently verify.

A government may operate a highly sophisticated revenue system, but if roads are deteriorating, drainage systems are failing, public schools are under-resourced, hospitals lack essential equipment, and basic infrastructure remains inadequate, citizens will inevitably question the efficiency of public spending.

This is where the Okpebholo administration must move beyond explanations of revenue consolidation and provide something more substantive:

credible financial data.

The 2025 fiscal records are particularly instructive. Edo State’s revised budget stood at approximately ₦761.43 billion. By year-end, the state reported actual recurrent revenue of about ₦511.23 billion, while total income, including capital receipts, reached approximately ₦560.31 billion.

Actual expenditure stood at about ₦556.53 billion, with capital expenditure accounting for roughly ₦335.09 billion.

We must note that theseare significant figures.They do not reflect a government operating under financial distress. Rather, they indicate substantial fiscal inflows within the state’s financial system.

Accordingly, Edo people are justified in asking what outcomes were achieved with the ₦335 billion in capital expenditure.

 How much was allocated to road infrastructure?

 How much was committed to flyover projects?

 How much was invested in education?

 How much was directed toward healthcare services?

 How much was spent on security infrastructure?

 How much was allocated to administrative facilities and government offices?

 How much was disbursed to contractors?

 How much remains outstanding?

And, most importantly, how much of these expenditures can be independently verified?

These are not politically motivated inquiries.

They are fundamental questions of public accountability.

The issue becomes even more critical when borrowing and government-backed financing are considered.

The state’s 2025 Citizens Budget provided for loans amounting to approximately ₦42.45 billion, comprising both domestic and external borrowing. In addition, the government announced a ₦100 billion credit facility for contractors, with the state acting as guarantor.

There is nothing inherently inappropriate about borrowing, provided such funds are directed toward productive infrastructure capable of generating economic value and long-term benefits.

However, borrowing creates binding obligations.

Any government that incurs debt or guarantees credit facilities has a responsibility to clearly explain how such funds are utilized, who benefits from them, and how the resulting liabilities will be serviced.

Citizens should not have to rely on political statements for such information.

It should be readily available through official public financial disclosures.

The same principle applies to road construction and maintenance.

Perhaps nowhere is public expenditure more visible than on the roads of Benin City.

As the economic centre of Edo State, Benin City serves thousands of residents who rely on its road network daily for commerce, education, healthcare access, and general mobility.

Consequently, the condition of these roads remains one of the most visible indicators of whether public spending is producing measurable results.

It is not sufficient for government to announce road rehabilitation projects. The public should be informed of project costs, contractors, contract durations, amounts disbursed, and whether work has been completed in accordance with specifications.

More importantly, there must be a sustainable maintenance framework.

Road construction without maintenance inevitably leads to a costly cycle of reconstruction.

When roads that have received substantial public investment deteriorate prematurely, government owes citizens a clear explanation.

Was the original construction substandard?

Was drainage design inadequate?

Was maintenance neglected?

Was the road subjected to excessive usage beyond design capacity?

Did contractors fail to meet required standards?

Or were maintenance funds insufficient or mismanaged?

These are both technical and financial questions.

And they are directly linked to the broader issue of revenue management.

For this reason, the Revenue Consolidation Account Law should not be presented as a final solution to Edo State’s fiscal challenges.

Rather, it should serve as a starting point for a broader and more transparent conversation on public finance accountability.

If all government revenue is now being consolidated into a single system, then the logical next step must be enhanced transparency.

Citizens should have regular access to data on revenue generated through taxes, levies, fees, licenses, permits, and other internal sources.

They should also be informed of FAAC allocations and other federal inflows.

They should know how much is allocated to salaries, overheads, debt servicing, and capital projects.

They should be able to track payments made to contractors and consultants.

The new revenue structure presents an opportunity to improve transparency, not reduce it.

Centralization should enhance visibility.

It should ensure that government has accurate, real-time knowledge of revenue inflows and expenditure patterns.

But it should equally ensure that citizens, the rightful owners of public funds should have access to the same information.

This is where a clear distinction must be made between financial control and financial accountability.

Financial control ensures that revenue is properly collected and channelled through approved systems.

Financial accountability explains how those funds are ultimately utilized.

Both are essential pillars of sound governance.

A government may exercise strong control over revenue collection while still failing to provide adequate accountability for expenditure.

That is why the current debate should not be limited to whether MDAs should maintain separate revenue accounts.

The more important question is whether Edo State’s public financial management system is delivering measurable value to its citizens.

Governor Okpebholo has an opportunity to provide a clear and convincing response.

He can publish a comprehensive financial report detailing the state’s revenue position since assuming office, including IGR, FAAC allocations, other receipts, borrowing, debt obligations, capital expenditure, and recurrent expenditure.

He can release a detailed breakdown of major projects, their contract values, and payments made to date.

He can also disclose road maintenance expenditures across Benin City and other parts of the state.

He can provide a transparent account of the state’s liabilities and guarantees.

He can clearly demonstrate what has changed in Edo State’s fiscal position since November 2024.

Such transparency would be far more persuasive than simply informing citizens that revenue now flows through a single consolidated account.

Ultimately, the issue is not the number of accounts the government operates.

The issue is whether public funds are being managed responsibly and effectively.

Edo people are not demanding the impossible.

They are demanding accountability.

They want clarity on why revenue appears to be increasing while critical infrastructure still requires urgent attention.

They want to know how much is being spent and what value is being delivered in return.

They want assurance that borrowed funds are being used to create durable public assets rather than merely sustaining government operations.

These are legitimate expectations in any democratic society.

Indeed, if Governor Okpebholo is committed to establishing a culture of fiscal discipline, he should welcome these questions rather than allow the conversation to end with legislative reform alone.

The Revenue Consolidation Account may help reduce leakages and improve financial control.

However, it cannot, on its own, guarantee accountability.

Consolidation is about centralizing funds.

Accountability is about explaining their use.

Edo people require both.

And until the government provides a clear, transparent, and verifiable account of revenue inflows, expenditures, borrowing, guarantees, and project outcomes, citizens will continue to ask the most fundamental question every government must be prepared to answer:

Where is the money going?

That is not opposition rhetoric.

That is the essence of democracy.