Ondo deputy gov’s alleged ₦180m arrears spark finance concerns

News

By Ade Oyeyemi

A legal practitioner, Wale Obanigba, has called for clarification over an allegation that more than N180m in running costs, travel allowances and other entitlements for the Ondo State Deputy Governor’s Office have remained unpaid for several months.

Obanigba raised the concern in his Friday Perspective titled, “When Financial Control Becomes a Governance Problem: The Ondo Case Study.”

The lawyer, while referencing a report by THISDAY, stressed that the claim had not been independently verified but said it was significant enough to warrant an explanation from the Ondo State Government.

He questioned whether the funds in question had been approved, when they were released and what might have caused any delay in their disbursement.

“If the money was approved, when was it released? If there was a delay, what caused it? If the reported figure is inaccurate, what is the actual position?” he asked.

Obanigba argued that the issue was broader than the alleged outstanding funds, saying concerns over the release of government resources had previously been raised in relation to the state’s financial administration.

He recalled that on April 18, 2026, he had written about what he described as the question of “Who Is Holding Ondo’s Money Hostage?”, expressing concern over what he said appeared to be increasing concentration of control over public funds within the Ministry of Finance.

According to him, the key issue was not simply whether funds were available but whether approved allocations were being released in sufficient time for government institutions to discharge their responsibilities.

He also referred to reports of disagreements within the cabinet over the implementation of increased salaries for political appointees, with the Commissioner for Finance reportedly at the centre of the dispute.

Obanigba, however, cautioned against treating the reports as established facts, noting that the allegations would need to be verified.

He said fiscal discipline remained necessary but should not result in delays that affect the functioning of government.

“There is nothing wrong with fiscal discipline. The Commissioner for Finance has an important responsibility to protect public resources, enforce financial regulations and ensure sustainable expenditure. But discipline should facilitate government, not immobilise it,” he said.

The lawyer also cited the state’s 2026 first-quarter budget implementation report, which, according to him, recorded total revenue, including opening balance, of about N305.1bn, while actual expenditure stood at approximately N61.3bn.

He noted that the report attributed some expenditure shortfalls to issues including documentation, procurement procedures and projects that had not been cash-backed. Ondo State’s budget portal lists the FY2026 First Quarter Budget Implementation Report among its published fiscal documents.

Obanigba therefore urged caution against automatically interpreting expenditure gaps as evidence that the Ministry of Finance deliberately withheld funds.

“The point, therefore, is not to automatically attribute every expenditure shortfall to deliberate withholding by the Ministry of Finance. It is to insist that the process from approval to cash-backing and eventual release should be clear enough to identify responsibility when delays occur,” he stated.

He further raised concerns about alleged delays in the release of funds to Ministries, Departments and Agencies, arguing that unexplained bottlenecks could affect routine government operations where allocations had already been approved.

The lawyer said responsibility for resolving such concerns ultimately rested within the state administration, noting that the Ministry of Finance operates as part of the government headed by Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa.

He urged the governor to examine whether approved funds were being delayed unnecessarily and establish clear procedures and timelines for the release of public resources.

READ ALSO

Obanigba maintained that fiscal discipline and effective governance could operate together, provided public funds were lawfully applied to approved programmes and legitimate government obligations.

He concluded by asking when financial control could become a governance challenge and who should be held responsible for addressing such a situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *