Senate wants fatter slice of national revenue, pushes fresh look at sharing formula
by: Oluwaseun M. Lawal
It was another busy Tuesday in the red chamber. Papers shuffled, voices rose, then calmed. And quietly, almost like routine business, the Senate took a step that could reshape how Nigeria’s money is shared.
A bill sponsored by Senator Sunday Karimi from Kogi West slipped through first reading. Simple on paper, big in implication. It seeks to tweak the 1999 Constitution so that the Federal Government gets a bigger cut from the common purse. Abuja, in their view, is now carrying more weight than its current share can handle.
Right now, for every chunk of revenue that comes into the federation account, a little over half – about 52.68% – goes to the Federal Government. The 36 states together take roughly 26.72%, while the 774 local governments share the remaining 20.60%. On the surface, it already looks like the centre is getting the lion’s share. But the Senate says it’s still not enough. Not anymore.
Talking to journalists after plenary, Karimi didn’t sugarcoat it. He described the Federal Government’s current portion as “grossly inadequate” for the level of work it is expected to do. Too many roads. Too many security threats. Too many bills to pay. Not enough money. In plain terms, Abuja says it’s stretched thin.
He argued that the revenue sharing model belongs to another time. An older Nigeria. One with fewer problems, fewer people, fewer crises. Today, the demands on the centre have ballooned – from crumbling highways that cut across several states, to the rising cost of fighting bandits, terrorists and all forms of violent crime. The federal purse, he suggested, just didn’t grow fast enough to match this new reality.
According to Karimi, federal roads across the country are in bad shape, some almost impassable. At the same time, security agencies are burning through cash and equipment as they struggle to keep pace with ever-evolving threats. Under the current formula, he said, the responsibilities weighing on the central government have become “overwhelming,” especially when you combine road construction, maintenance, and the huge internal security bill.
For him, and for those backing the bill, a review of the allocation formula is no longer optional. It’s inevitable. If the Federal Government must repair highways, modernise infrastructure, and still fund a serious war against terrorism and banditry, then it needs more funds to do so. Otherwise, they fear, something important will give way – either the roads, or the security, or both.
Karimi hinted that inadequate funding has already slowed down the military’s ability to fully confront insurgents and other armed groups. With more money flowing to the centre, he believes, the armed forces and other security agencies can be better equipped, better trained, and better positioned to respond. In his words and tone, the logic was straightforward: strengthen the federal share, and you strengthen national security.
For now, it’s just a bill at first reading. A starting point. It will still go through debates, amendments, politics. States and local governments, who also nurse their own financial pains, may not exactly clap for a plan that could shrink their slice of the pie. But one thing is clear: the conversation about who gets what, and why, has been reopened. And it’s not going away soon.
