Prof. Chiwuike Uba, Ph.D.
Public spending tells powerful stories, and the latest Q3 2025 budget performance reports from Imo, Abia, and Enugu read like three chapters from the same book written in different hands. Each state is navigating the same national fiscal headwinds, yet their choices, priorities, and execution patterns reveal striking differences in governance, financial discipline, and development ambition.
These reports do more than present figures. They open a window into how leaders convert public funds into real outcomes that citizens can see, feel, and measure in their daily lives. They show who stayed grounded in fiscal reality, who aimed for more than they could finance, and who managed to translate plans into progress.
The third-quarter 2025 Budget Implementation Reports issued by Imo, Abia, and Enugu States present a unique opportunity to examine how three subnational governments translate public resources into development outcomes within the same national fiscal environment. Their reports, anchored on the National Chart of Accounts and structured according to statutory fiscal reporting requirements, contain detailed revenue and expenditure information, sector-level outcomes, MDA performance summaries, and explanatory notes that allow an informed assessment of budget credibility, fiscal discipline, capital absorption, and sectoral development trends.
A close reading of the documents shows that despite operating under similar macroeconomic conditions, including volatile FAAC inflows, inflationary pressures, revenue shortfalls, and implementation constraints, the three states exhibit distinct fiscal behaviors, varying capacities to execute capital budgets, and divergent development priorities.
The fiscal structure of each state also differs in terms of the size of the budget, the mix of recurrent and capital spending, the level of reliance on FAAC, and the realism of the capital financing projections embedded in their budget frameworks.
*Imo State: Balanced Execution and Tangible Outcomes*
Imo State recorded one of the strongest aggregate fiscal performances of the three states. By the end of Q3, its total receipts stood at ₦375.50 billion, representing 46.5 percent of the approved annual figure. This performance was driven by exceptionally strong statutory allocations. After three quarters, FAAC receipts had reached ₦265.73 billion, translating to 90.6 percent of the annual FAAC estimate. Recurrent revenue totaled ₦289.72 billion, or 86.3 percent of the recurrent revenue target, underscoring the reliability of federal transfers within Imo’s fiscal framework. Although internally generated revenue amounted to ₦23.99 billion, only 56.3 percent of the annual IGR projection, the state’s revenue structure for 2025 relied more heavily on statutory receipts, and the strong FAAC performance effectively compensated for IGR shortfalls.
The state’s total expenditure by Q3 was ₦342.08 billion (42.4 percent of the annual estimate), with capital expenditure reaching ₦265.10 billion, equivalent to 38.2 percent of the approved capital budget of ₦694.79 billion. This relatively high level of capital execution indicates a budget that was more in line with the state’s absorptive and financing capacity.
Imo’s report reveals that capital expenditure was distributed across a wide range of sectors. Education projects, including school rehabilitation, classroom construction, technical education facilities, and teacher-support infrastructure, recorded notable disbursements. Health sector projects such as PHC upgrades, maternal health facilities, and hospital renovations also received capital backing. This included specific spending on medical facility upgrades in general hospitals and primary healthcare centers captured in the state’s capital project tables.
Agriculture benefited from investments in farm settlements, extension services, and crop and livestock support programs. In infrastructure, the state funded various road construction and rehabilitation works, as well as bridges, rural access routes, and urban development initiatives that contribute to economic connectivity.
These sectoral allocations indicate a development strategy that balances economic infrastructure with social development.
Project-level evidence strengthens this interpretation. Imo’s capital project tables include funding to ongoing school rehabilitation projects under the Ministry of Education, where several classroom blocks, school roofs, and laboratory facilities were reported as under construction or recently completed by Q3.
Similar progress appears in the Ministry of Health’s capital project list, where PHC renovation projects, ward expansions, and procurement of health equipment reflect the actual flows reported. In the roads sector, projects such as urban resurfacing and rural feeders show concrete physical progress corresponding to the capital expenditure reported. These project entries confirm that Imo’s capital expenditure figures reflect real activities rather than dormant appropriations. This connection between budgetary input and physical output underscores a stronger budget-to-service delivery link relative to many other subnational contexts.
At the same time, Imo’s expenditure profile reveals significant variances that have implications for public financial management. The “Other Recurrent” expenditure group, covering items under codes 2203 to 2209, stood at 225.4 percent of the annual estimate, a variance that substantially exceeds the approved ceiling.
Furthermore, transfers to the capital account amounted to ₦298.52 billion, which is 133.6 percent of the approved transfer amount. These variances, explicitly shown in the report’s expenditure tables, signal underlying risks related to commitment controls, reclassification of spending, and within-year virements.
Although the state’s capital implementation is strong, such variances introduce governance risks that require careful scrutiny, including potential weaknesses in expenditure discipline and internal control procedures. Nonetheless, in comparison with the other two states, Imo’s fiscal structure, execution pattern, and alignment between revenue and expenditure remained relatively more credible.
*Abia State: Roads First, Social Sectors Lagging*
Abia State’s fiscal report presents a different trajectory, shaped heavily by its adoption of a significantly expanded revised budget for 2025. As of Q3, the state had realized ₦268.77 billion in total receipts, representing 29.9 percent of this revised estimate. Recurrent revenue amounted to ₦242.74 billion (62.4 percent of target), while FAAC receipts reached ₦196.87 billion (73.3 percent). IGR performance was lower at ₦45.87 billion (38.0 percent of the annual IGR target).
The scale of the revised budget, combined with the timing of receipts, resulted in a relatively low implementation ratio when measured against the revised envelope, particularly in the capital component. This large discrepancy also reflects a fundamental budget credibility challenge. The revised fiscal envelope did not correspond to realizable financing flows.
The standout feature of Abia’s 2025 fiscal execution is the exceptional performance of the roads and works sector. The report shows that the state executed approximately ₦136.17 billion in road-related capital expenditure, equivalent to roughly 80.4 percent of the sector’s budgeted sum. This is one of the highest capital absorption rates for any sector across all three states.
Specific project-level entries include major road works in Aba urban areas, inter-community roads, drainage works, and the rehabilitation of strategic economic corridors. The project list includes the reconstruction of key intersections and bridges, expansion of dual carriageways, and rehabilitation works that were reported as ongoing or nearing completion by Q3.
The high cash backing for these projects is reflected in the capital cashflow tables, confirming expenditures that correspond to physical delivery.
However, Abia’s progress outside the roads sector is notably more limited. The primary healthcare program exhibited limited capital disbursements during the quarter despite budget provisions for facility upgrades, procurement of medical equipment, and health infrastructure expansion.
In education, several sub-programs related to basic and senior secondary education showed low absorption, with many capital lines still reporting minimal or no expenditure. This suggests that while Abia’s economic infrastructure benefited from strong political prioritization and effective execution, human development sectors may be experiencing delays linked to procurement bottlenecks, administrative constraints, or sequencing decisions that push social sector implementation later into the year. Such imbalances introduce a development risk because strong road infrastructure alone cannot compensate for weaknesses in education and health services.
Abia’s budget credibility is also weakened by its dependence on borrowing projected in the revised budget. The Q3 performance indicated that much of the anticipated financing had not materialized, creating a financing gap that could lead to project delays or rollovers into future fiscal years. The structure of the revised budget therefore raises sustainability concerns because an overstretched fiscal envelope can undermine execution realism.
*Enugu State: Ambition Outstrips Financing*
Enugu State’s report reflects one of the most ambitious capital-oriented budgets at the subnational level, with ₦971.08 billion in total estimates and ₦837.94 billion (86 percent) allocated to capital expenditure. By Q3, recurrent revenue performance was steady, with ₦328.36 billion realized (44.4 percent of the annual recurrent revenue forecast). FAAC receipts were particularly strong at ₦207.10 billion (90 percent of the annual FAAC projection), and IGR amounted to ₦121.26 billion, representing 23.8 percent of the annual IGR target.
However, the most consequential finding is that capital receipts, expected to fund the bulk of the capital budget, totaled only ₦46.85 billion (5.6 percent of the annual target). This extremely low realization of capital financing severely constrains Enugu’s ability to execute its capital plan, creating a direct mismatch between ambition and deliverable outcomes.
Sectoral analysis of Enugu’s capital performance reveals wide disparities. In education, the state made visible progress on select high-value projects. The capital project tables show that some school construction and infrastructure modernization items recorded performance levels between 40 and 53 percent, indicating active procurement and contract execution.
However, many basic education projects, including classroom upgrades, school fencing, and facilities improvement initiatives, remained at 0 percent execution by Q3. This pattern suggests that large-scale service improvement projects faced significant financing or procurement delays, while flagship projects with clear strategic visibility were prioritized within the limited available resources.
Health sector performance follows a similar pattern. The report includes capital lines for general hospital facilities, primary healthcare centers, maternity units, and diagnostic infrastructure. While a few projects recorded disbursements, many others remained without spending, indicating incomplete procurement cycles or missing expenditure returns.
In the roads and works sector, capital expenditure appears in projects relating to urban roads, rural access roads, and drainage construction. Although several construction efforts were ongoing, the overall scale of implementation remains modest relative to the expansive capital allocation originally approved for the fiscal year.
Enugu’s report also acknowledges that some MDAs had not submitted returns, meaning that actual expenditures may extend beyond what is presented. This introduces a reporting risk that complicates the assessment of fiscal performance.
Nonetheless, the data that is reported clearly illustrates a budget credibility challenge. Planned capital expenditure far exceeded actual financing inflows.
*Comparative Insights and Policy Implications*
Taken together, the sectoral outcomes across the three states reveal different development strategies and systemic constraints. Imo exhibits a balanced model with meaningful capital deployment across both economic and social sectors, reflecting a more realistic capital plan aligned with available financing.
Abia demonstrates a strong economic-infrastructure-first model, with concentrated investment in roads and urban infrastructure but weaker implementation in social sectors.
Enugu exhibits an ambitious but underfinanced capital plan, resulting in progress on flagship projects but significant under-execution across many routine or smaller-scale projects, particularly in education and health.
The project-level evidence deepens this reading. Imo’s school rehabilitation and PHC upgrade projects show concrete outputs tied to fiscal inputs. Abia’s large-scale roads reconstruction, particularly in Aba, stands out as a high-absorption, high-visibility capital program with strong execution. Enugu’s selective progress on flagship education and infrastructure projects contrasts sharply with widespread non-execution in other areas due to financing shortfalls or delayed procurement.
Across the three states, several risks and threats emerge from the evidence. Imo’s significant overshooting of “Other Recurrent” spending and transfers to the capital account suggests vulnerabilities in expenditure controls, even though its core revenue and capital execution remain strong.
Abia faces fiscal sustainability risks stemming from a revised budget that depends heavily on unmaterialized borrowing, combined with uneven sectoral execution that could undermine service delivery.
Enugu faces the most significant structural risk. A capital plan that exceeds financing capacity creates a risk of project stalling, arrears accumulation, or significant rollover pressures into future budgets. Reporting gaps, particularly missing MDA returns, also undermine transparency and accountability.
In all three cases, the interplay of budget ambitions, financing realities, PFM control systems, procurement capacity, and implementation discipline shapes the outcomes recorded in Q3. Imo’s relatively stronger performance reflects a closer alignment between fiscal planning and actual receipts, along with a consistent execution pattern that converts spending into tangible development outputs across multiple sectors. Abia’s targeted success in roads underscores the importance of prioritization but highlights the trade-offs when social sectors lag behind. Enugu’s experience demonstrates the consequences of misaligned capital planning, insufficient financing flows, and reporting gaps that constrain effective budget monitoring.
The evidence from the Q3 2025 budget reports therefore makes clear that improved development outcomes require not only stronger revenue mobilization and capital execution, but also realistic budgeting, robust internal controls, credible procurement and reporting systems, and balanced sectoral prioritization. Imo, Abia, and Enugu each illustrate different strengths and weaknesses in this regard, and their Q3 performance provides a factual, data-driven foundation for informed reforms, policy adjustments, and strengthened accountability mechanisms that can better connect public spending to sustainable social and economic development. God is with us!