Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
GUSAU — Zamfara State Governor Dauda Lawal has alleged that his administration has been excluded from federal palliative allocations because of political differences with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, claiming that while some states received over ₦500 billion in support, Zamfara received nothing.
Governor Lawal made the remarks amid continuing national debate over the distribution of federal intervention funds designed to cushion the impact of economic reforms, including fuel subsidy removal and currency adjustments. The federal government had rolled out a series of palliative measures to support states and vulnerable households following rising inflation and cost-of-living pressures.
Speaking during a public engagement in Gusau, the Zamfara capital, Lawal argued that political affiliation should not determine access to federally allocated resources. He suggested that states governed by members of the ruling All Progressives Congress had benefited significantly from federal disbursements, while Zamfara, under his leadership, had been sidelined.
“There are states that received over ₦500 billion as palliatives, but Zamfara got nothing from Tinubu because I’m not in APC,” the governor said, framing the alleged exclusion as discriminatory and inconsistent with principles of federal equity.
The Presidency has not formally responded to the specific claim that Zamfara was denied allocations on political grounds. However, federal officials have previously stated that palliative funds were distributed according to established fiscal frameworks and revenue-sharing formulas involving the Federation Account Allocation Committee.
Under the federal intervention program, state governments were provided with financial support, grains, and other relief materials to mitigate economic hardship. In addition, the federal government approved various credit facilities and grants aimed at stabilizing subnational finances during the transition period following major economic policy shifts.
Analysts note that while aggregate figures of federal allocations to states often run into hundreds of billions of naira, these amounts typically reflect cumulative disbursements across multiple tranches and funding windows rather than a single transfer. States’ shares are usually determined by population, need, and statutory allocation formulas, though political tensions sometimes shape public perception of fairness.
Zamfara, located in Nigeria’s northwest, has faced persistent security and economic challenges, including banditry, displacement of rural communities, and constrained revenue generation. The state’s fiscal capacity remains limited compared with larger oil-producing or commercially vibrant states. Governor Lawal has repeatedly appealed for enhanced federal collaboration to address insecurity and humanitarian concerns.
Political observers suggest that the governor’s remarks reflect broader friction between opposition-led states and the federal government. Nigeria’s federal structure, while constitutionally designed to promote equity among states, often becomes a flashpoint during periods of intense partisan competition.
Civil society groups have called for transparency in the reporting of palliative allocations, urging both federal and state governments to publish detailed breakdowns of funds received and expended. Transparency advocates argue that clear documentation would help dispel allegations of favoritism and ensure accountability in the use of public resources.
Economists point out that Nigeria’s palliative strategy was conceived as a temporary relief mechanism rather than a long-term solution to structural economic challenges. Rising inflation, currency volatility, and supply chain constraints have continued to affect household purchasing power, increasing pressure on state administrations to supplement federal efforts with local initiatives.
Governor Lawal’s assertion that Zamfara received no federal support has also drawn scrutiny regarding the distinction between direct budgetary transfers and in-kind or indirect interventions. In previous federal briefings, officials indicated that every state benefited from at least one component of the national relief package, whether through financial grants, food supplies, or infrastructure support.
The political implications of the governor’s statement may extend beyond fiscal debates. As Nigeria gradually approaches the 2027 election cycle, narratives about equity, inclusion, and federal-state relations are likely to feature prominently in public discourse. Allegations of partisan distribution of national resources can influence voter sentiment and intergovernmental cooperation.
For residents of Zamfara, the practical concern remains the adequacy of social safety nets amid ongoing economic strain. Community leaders have urged both state and federal authorities to prioritize collaboration over confrontation, emphasizing that development and security outcomes hinge on coordinated action.
While the federal government has maintained that its palliative measures were implemented without regard to party affiliation, the absence of detailed, publicly accessible allocation data continues to fuel debate. Calls are mounting for independent verification of disbursement records and clearer communication on how intervention figures are calculated.
As discussions unfold, the controversy underscores the sensitivity of fiscal federalism in Nigeria’s multi-party democracy. Whether the matter will prompt formal clarification from Abuja or further dialogue between the Presidency and Zamfara State remains to be seen. For now, the governor’s allegations have added another dimension to the evolving conversation about economic relief, political alignment, and the distribution of national resources.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments