Analysis
Why states should own and develop resources and pay tax to Federal Government
By Omoh Gabriel
Last week the Lagos State Governor sparked off a debate on the minimum wage. The debate is that states cannot pay the new N18,000. The minimum wage had been pegged at N7,500. This is about 140 per cent increase. Wages are not determined on political platform or on emotion but on economic basis. Ability to pay. In a true fiscal federalism, it is the responsibility of the federating units to negotiate with their workers in what is termed collective bargaining.
There are wage differentials in every economy and across sectors. But Nigeria does not operate a true fiscal federalism. It is more like a unitary state which twelve years of active democracy has not been able to correct. The Federal Government is like imposing the minimum wage issue on the states which is an aberration of fiscal federalism. The news is that because the Federal Government has reached agreement with federal civil servants and states are expected to follow suit, Governors are pushing for a new revenue formula that will cede more funds to states and the local governments to enable them pay workers and not to embark on development.
Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Fashola revealed the new proposal on May 1, as workers told states to pay the N18,000 minimum wage or face a showdown. Governors have said they would not be able to pay the new wage because the states are short of funds. Should they be forced to pay, there will be little or no funds for projects. They also accused the Federal Government of unilaterally entering into an agreement on the new wage with the workers.
The Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) raised a committee of six, headed by Fashola, to review the revenue formula and submit its recommendation. The Lagos helmsman said that the committee recommended a new formula: Federal Government (35 per cent), the 36 state governments (42 per cent) and the 774 local governments (23 per cent). The current revenue formula gives the Federal Government 52 per cent, states 26.72 per cent and the local governments 20.60 per cent. Governors that are pushing for a new revenue formula had the unique opportunity during these 12 years through their forum to have caused a bill that when passed, will ensure true federalism.
Professor Adebayo Adedeji, an eminent Economist in his book, Nigerian Federal Finance, Its Development, Problems and Prospects said that ‚ÄúFederal finance, in contrast with unitary finance, is a triple division of resources between the federal authority, the regional or state governments, and the local authorities. A study of federal finance therefore involves this triple relationship.‚Äù But the most important characteristics of federal finance are to be found in the financial status of the ‘intermediate’ political entities, the states or regions, which are designed to perform certain functions which in a unitary system, are assigned to the central authority.
The principles of federal finance can therefore be interpreted to mean the principles which these intermediate political entities and the central authorities should follow in their fiscal operations. The position of local authorities in a federation is not appreciably different from their position in a unitary state, at least so far as finance is concerned. Nigeria has no defined fiscal structure in states and has not pursued taxation as main revenue source as a result of earnings from oil. Each level of government has in the last 30 years or so, depended solely on revenue from sale of crude which is monetised every month and shared in a formula that is somewhat skewed in favour of the Federal Government. States and local governments in the federation have abandoned their responsibility of generating and developing their internal resources and only depending on the federal allocation for payment of salaries. This aberration arose from the incursion of the military into the polity that allocated resources based on its concept of its command structure.
In an established federalism, the principles of public finance, particularly of taxation, have received attention from the earliest days of economic analysis. The mercantilist and the physiocrats, as well as the classical economists, advanced propositions concerning tax principles. David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill recognised the division of the subject-matter of public finance into three aspects – revenue, expenditure, and public debt.
Yes in Nigeria, there is revenue, expenditure and debt in public finance. The question is what are the sources of revenue in public finance in Nigeria? Up till now, about 90 per cent of public finance is from oil. What about other natural resources that are said to abound in the country? In every state of the federation, there are large deposits of mineral resources that when developed, can earn the country more money than oil, yet nothing is being done.
Is it normal for the control of land across the country to be vested in the Governors while the mineral deposits in the same land are in the hands of the federal authority? You need a mining lease, you go take permit from the Federal Government but when you need land to build or develop structures, you obtain certificate of occupancy from the state government. Yet, all this while, the state governors have not seen anything wrong with this arrangement. Nigeria must begin to operate a true federalism in which tax policy becomes the key fiscal instrument. States must be allowed to develop the resources in their domain and pay tax to maintain the Federal Government.
It should not be that every now and then the clamour for a new revenue formula begin to disturb the polity. Yes, it is true that in true fiscal federalism, the Federal Government cannot be content with only following the basic principle of public finance in its own sphere of activity, it should also act as a coordinator to effect such transfers as may be necessary to achieve the overall marginal equilibrium. That is aid and financial assistance to such states. As it is, the Federal Government has become the big father who collects all the money and dole out favours to states and local governments. It is an essential function of the Federal Government to follow the basic principle of public finance for the country as a whole, taking into account the fiscal activities of the states. The question to ask is which of these levels of government are closer to the people and are entrusted with services that are of immediate benefit to the masses? The Federal Government should diverge itself from services that states and local governments can offer and thus make more resources available to them in the interim.
According to Adedeji, the ‘federal principle’ requires that the federal and state governments be coordinate but independent of each other within their spheres of competence. In the field of public finance, this means independent and coordinate tax jurisdictions. And with independent financial resources and distinct functions goes independent public expenditure policy. For example, where independent sources of revenue are assigned to the federal and state governments, each might tax its own sphere according to the principle of least aggregate sacrifice.
Because of differences in the level of economic development of the different states, the marginal sacrifice of the taxpayers of each state is unlikely to be the same as the marginal sacrifice of the taxpayers of the other states. Here is why states cannot pay the same level of minimum wages. At the moment, states are not equally endowed with resources. Whatever may be the basis for dividing the spheres of government between these two levels, each should be given adequate fiscal powers if it is to be able to discharge its duties and responsibilities and still preserve its autonomy. Fiscal independence is a concomitant of local self-government, which the federating units desire to preserve. It is, however, a rarity for the fiscal powers granted to federal and state governments to prove adequate for all time.
Resources available to the various levels of government must be adequate, as far as possible, to meet the needs and responsibilities of each government. It is desirable to allocate sources of revenue to the unit government in order to achieve stability. It is more important for local revenue to be stable than for state revenue, and more important for state revenue to be stable than federal. In an emergency, the Federal Government, with its greater recourse to internal and external borrowing, is better able to bear financial shocks and strains than the state governments. Here is why every state must begin to call for control of its resources and pay tax to the Federal Government period!
Analysis
As EU plans Russian Gas exit, Ministers to convene in Paris to chart Africa’s export potential
In the wake of seismic shifts in the European energy landscape, the Invest in African Energy (IAE) 2026 Forum in Paris will host a Ministerial Dialogue on “Unlocking Africa’s Gas Supply for Global Energy Security.” This strategic session will examine how Africa can turn its untapped gas reserves into a reliable and sustainable source of supply. With Europe seeking to diversify away from Russian gas, the dialogue highlights both the continent’s growing role in global energy markets and the opportunity for African producers to attract long-term investment. Recent developments underscore the urgency of Africa’s role in global energy security. Last month, EU countries agreed to phase out their remaining Russian gas imports, with existing contracts benefiting from a transition period: short-term contracts can continue until June 2026, while long-term contracts will run until January 2028. In parallel, the European Commission is pushing to end Russian LNG imports by January 2027 under a broader sanctions package aimed at limiting Moscow’s energy revenues.
Africa’s role in this rebalancing is already gaining momentum. Algeria recently renewed its gas supply agreement with ČEZ Group, ensuring continued deliveries to the Czech Republic. In Libya, the National Oil Corporation (NOC) has approved new compressors at the Bahr Essalam field to boost output and reinforce flows via the Greenstream pipeline to Italy. These developments complement the Structures A&E offshore project – led by Eni and the NOC – which is expected to bring two platforms online by 2026 and produce up to 750 million cubic feet per day, supporting both domestic and European demand. West Africa is pursuing ambitious export routes as well.
Nigeria, Algeria and Niger have revived the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP), with engineering firm Penspen commissioned earlier this year to revalidate its feasibility. The proposed $25 billion Nigeria–Morocco pipeline is also advancing as a long-term corridor linking West African gas to European markets. Meanwhile, the Greater Tortue Ahmeyim (GTA) project off Mauritania and Senegal came online earlier this year, with its first phase targeting 2.3 million tons of LNG annually. In June, the project delivered its third cargo to Belgium’s Zeebrugge terminal, marking the first African LNG shipment from GTA to Europe. Together, these milestones underscore a strategic convergence: African producers are accelerating efforts to scale up exports just as Europe intensifies its search for reliable alternatives to Russian gas.
Yet, as the ministerial session will explore, unlocking Africa’s gas supply demands sustained investment, regulatory alignment, environmental management and community engagement. For Europe, diversification of supply is a strategic necessity; for African producers, it is an opportunity to accelerate development, build infrastructure and secure long-term capital. At IAE 2026, these shifts will be examined by the officials and stakeholders driving them. The Ministerial Dialogue brings African energy leaders together with European policymakers, industry players and investors in a setting that supports practical, solution-focused discussion on supply, export strategies and future cooperation. As Europe adapts its gas strategy and African producers progress major projects, the Forum provides a direct platform for ministers to outline priorities and for investors to engage with key decision-makers.
Analysis
Authorities must respond as digital tools used by organized criminals accelerate financial crime—IMF
International Monetary Fund IMF, has said that criminals are outpacing enforcement by adapting ever faster ways to carry out digital fraud. The INF in a Blog post said the Department of Justice in June announced the largest-ever US crypto seizure: $225 million from crypto scams known as pig butchering, in which organized criminals, often across borders, use advanced technology and social engineering such as romance or investment schemes to manipulate victims. This typically involves using AI-generated profiles, encrypted messaging, and obscured blockchain transactions to hide and move stolen funds. It was a big win. Federal agents collaborated across jurisdictions and used blockchain analysis and machine learning to track thousands of wallets used to scam more than 400 victims. Yet it was also a rare victory that underscored how authorities often must play catch-up in a fast-changing digital world. And the scammers are still out there. They pick the best tools for their schemes, from laundering money through crypto and AI-enabled impersonation to producing deepfake content, encrypted apps, and decentralized exchanges. Authorities confronting anonymous, borderless threats are held back by jurisdiction, process, and legacy systems.
Annual illicit crypto activity growth has averaged about 25 percent in recent years and may have surpassed $51 billion last year, according to Chainalysis, a New York–based blockchain analysis firm specializing in helping criminal investigators trace transactions. Bad actors still depend on cash and traditional finance, and money laundering specifically relies on banks, informal money changers, and cash couriers. But the old ways are being reinforced or supercharged by technologies to thwart detection and disruption.
Encrypted messaging apps help cartels coordinate cross-border transactions. Stablecoins and lightly regulated virtual asset platforms can hide bribes and embezzled funds. Cybercriminals use AI-generated identities and bots to deceive banks and evade outdated controls. Tracking proceeds generated by organized crime is nearly impossible for underresourced agencies. AI lowers barriers to entry. Fraudsters with voice-cloning and fake-document generators bypass the verification protocols many banks and regulators still use. Their innovation is growing as compliance systems lag. Governments recognize the threats, but responses are fragmented and uneven—including in regulation of crypto exchanges. And there are delays implementing the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF’s) “travel rule” to better identify those sending and receiving money across borders, which most digital proceeds cross.
Meanwhile, international financial flows are increasingly complicated by instant transfers on decentralized platforms and anonymity-enhancing tools. Most payments still go through multiple intermediaries, often layering cross-border transactions through antiquated correspondent banks that obscure and delay transactions while raising costs. This helps criminals exploit oversight gaps, jurisdictional coordination, and technological capacity to operate across borders, often undetected.
Regulators and fintechs should be partners, and sustained multilateral engagement should foster fast, cheap, transparent, and traceable cross-border payments. There’s a parallel narrative. Criminals exploit innovation for secrecy and speed while companies and governments test coordination to reduce vulnerabilities and modernize cross-border infrastructure. At the same time, technological implications remain underexplored with respect to anti–money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, or AML/CFT. Singapore’s and Thailand’s linked fast payment systems, for example, enable real-time retail transfers using mobile numbers; Indonesia and Malaysia have connected QR codes for cross-border payments. Such innovations offer efficiency and inclusion yet raise new issues regarding identity verification, transaction monitoring, and regulatory coordination.
In India, the Unified payments interface enables seamless transfers across apps and platforms, highlighting the power of interoperable design. More than 18 billion monthly transactions, many across competing platforms, show how openness and standardization drive scale and inclusion. Digital payments in India grew faster when interoperability improved, especially in fragmented markets where switching was costly, IMF research shows These regional innovations and global initiatives reflect a growing understanding that fighting crime and fostering inclusion are interlinked priorities—especially as criminals speed ahead. The FATF echoed this concern, urging countries to design AML/CFT controls that support inclusion and innovation. Moreover, an FATF June recommendation marks a major advance: Requiring originator and beneficiary information for cross-border wire transfers—including those involving virtual assets—will enhance traceability across the fast-evolving digital financial ecosystem.
Efforts like these are important examples of how technology enables criminal advantage, but technology must also be part of the regulatory response.
Modernizing cross-border payment systems and reducing unintended AML/CFT barriers increasingly means focusing on transparency, interoperability, and risk-based regulation. The IMF’s work on “safe payment corridors” supports this by helping countries build trusted, secure channels for legitimate financial flows without undermining new technology. A pilot with Samoa —where de-risking has disrupted remittances—showed how targeted safeguards and collaboration with regulated providers can preserve access while maintaining financial integrity without disrupting the use of new payment platforms.
Several countries, with IMF guidance, are investing in machine learning to detect anomalies in cross-border financial flows, and others are tightening regulation of virtual asset service providers. Governments are investing in their own capacity to trace crypto transfers, and blockchain analytics firms are often employed to do that. IMF analysis of cross-border flows and the updated FATF rules are mutually reinforcing. If implemented cohesively, they can help digital efficiency coexist with financial integrity. For that to happen, legal frameworks must adapt to enable timely access to digital evidence while preserving due process. Supervisory models need to evolve to oversee both banks and nonbank financial institutions offering cross-border services. Regulators and fintechs should be partners, and sustained multilateral engagement should foster fast, cheap, transparent, and traceable cross-border payments—anchored interoperable standards that also respect privacy.
Governments must keep up. That means investing in regulatory technology, such as AI-powered transaction monitoring and blockchain analysis, and giving agencies tools and expertise to detect complex crypto schemes and synthetic identity fraud. Institutions must keep pace with criminals by hiring and retaining expert data scientists and financial crime specialists. Virtual assets must be brought under AML/CFT regulation, public-private partnerships should codevelop tools to spot emerging risks, and global standards from the FATF and the Financial Stability Board must be backed by national investments in effective AML/CFT frameworks.
Consistent and coordinated implementation is important. Fragmented efforts leave openings for criminals. Their growing technological advantage over governments threatens to undermine financial integrity, destabilize economies, weaken already fragile institutions, and erode public trust in systems meant to ensure safety and fairness. As crime rings adopt and adapt emerging technologies to outpace enforcement, the cost is not only fiscal—it is structural and systemic. Governments can’t wait. The criminals won’t.
Analysis
Multilateral development banks reaffirm commitment to climate finance, pledge innovative funding for adaptation
Multilateral development banks have reaffirmed their commitment to climate finance, pledging to scale up innovative funding to boost climate adaptation and resilience. “Financing climate resilience is not a cost, but an investment.” This was the key message from senior MDB officials at the end of a side event organised by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) on the opening day of the 30th United Nations Climate Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil.
The conference runs from 10 to 21 November. During a panel discussion titled “Accelerating large-scale climate change adaptation,” MDB representatives, including the African Development Bank Group, outlined how their institutions are fulfilling Paris Agreement commitments by mobilising substantial and innovative resources for climate adaptation and mitigation. Ilan Goldfajn, President of the Inter-American Development Bank Group, emphasised that “resilience is more than a concern for the future: it is also essential for development today.” He announced that MDBs are tripling their financing for resilience over the next decade, targeting $42 billion by 2030.
“At the Inter-American Development Bank, we are turning preparedness into protection and resilience into opportunity,” Goldfajn added. Tanja Faller, Director of Technical Evaluation and Monitoring at the Council of Europe Development Bank, stressed that climate change “not only creates new threats, but also amplifies existing inequalities. The most socially vulnerable people are the hardest hit and the last to recover. This is how a climate crisis also becomes a social crisis.” Representatives from the Islamic Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank Group, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank, the New Development Bank and IDB Invest (the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank Group) also shared concrete examples of successful adaptation investments and strategies for mobilising new resources.
Kevin Kariuki, Vice President of the African Development Bank Group in charge of Power, Energy, Climate and Green Growth, presented the Bank’s leadership in advancing climate adaptation and mitigation. “At the African Development Bank, we understand the priorities of our countries: adaptation and mitigation are at the heart of our climate interventions.” He highlighted the creation of the Climate Action Window, a new financing mechanism under the African Development Fund, the Bank Group’s concessional window for low-income countries.
“The African Development Bank is the only multilateral development bank with a portfolio of adaptation projects ready for investment through the Climate Action Window,” Kariuki noted, adding that Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland are among key co-financing partners. Kariuki also showcased the Bank’s YouthADAPT programme, which has invested $5.4 million in 41 youth-led enterprises across 20 African countries, generating more than 10,000 jobs — 61 percent of which are led by women, and mobilising an additional $7 million in private and donor funding.
Representatives from Zambia, Mozambique and Jamaica also shared local perspectives on the financing needs of communities most exposed to climate risk. The panel followed the official opening of COP30, marked by a passionate appeal from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for greater climate investment to prevent a “tragedy for humanity.”
“Without the Paris Agreement, we would see a 4–5°C increase in global temperatures,” Lula warned. “Our call to action is based on three pillars: honouring commitments; accelerating public action with a roadmap enabling humanity to move away from fossil fuels and deforestation; and placing humanity at the heart of the climate action programme: thousands of people are living in poverty and deprivation as a result of climate change. The climate emergency is a crisis of inequality,” he continued.
“We must build a future that is not doomed to tragedy. We must ensure that we live in a world where we can still dream.” Outgoing COP President Mukhtar Babayevn, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Ecology, urged developed nations to fulfil their promises made at the Baku Conference, including commitments to mobilise $300 billion in climate finance. He called for stronger political will and multilateral cooperation, before handing over the COP presidency to Brazilian diplomat André Corrêa do Lago, who now leads the negotiations.
-
News3 days agoNigeria to officially tag Kidnapping as Act of Terrorism as bill passes 2nd reading in Senate
-
News3 days agoNigeria champions African-Arab trade to boost agribusiness, industrial growth
-
News3 days agoFG’s plan to tax digital currencies may push traders to into underground financing—stakeholders
-
Finance1 week agoAfreximbank successfully closed its second Samurai Bond transactions, raising JPY 81.8bn or $527m
-
Economy3 days agoMAN cries out some operators at FTZs abusing system to detriment of local manufacturers
-
News1 week agoFG launches fresh offensive against Trans-border crimes, irregular migration, ECOWAS biometric identity Card
-
News3 days agoEU to support Nigeria’s war against insecurity
-
Uncategorized3 days agoDeveloping Countries’ Debt Outflows Hit 50-Year High During 2022-2024—WBG
