By Julius Peter
Lawyer and public affairs commentator, Deji Adeyanju, has called on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to broaden its anti-corruption focus by closely monitoring the revenues accruing to state governments, particularly the increased fiscal inflows following the removal of the petrol subsidy.
Adeyanju’s call comes against the backdrop of the EFCC’s recent disclosure of significant recoveries and convictions recorded under its current leadership. He commended the anti-graft agency for what he described as measurable progress in the fight against economic and financial crimes but argued that recovering funds after they have allegedly been stolen should not be the only objective of anti-corruption enforcement.
According to him, greater emphasis must also be placed on preventing the diversion of public resources before they are lost.
The lawyer said the increase in revenues available to state governments following the removal of the petrol subsidy had created a corresponding need for stronger scrutiny of how such resources are allocated and spent.
“More importantly, the fight against corruption must extend beyond recovering yesterday’s stolen funds to preventing the diversion of tomorrow’s public resources,” Adeyanju said.
He argued that Nigerians have a legitimate right to know how the additional revenues received by governments are being deployed, particularly at a time when citizens are confronting the economic consequences of the subsidy removal.
Adeyanju urged the EFCC, within its statutory mandate, to pay closer attention to credible allegations involving the diversion or misuse of such funds and to “follow the money from allocation to expenditure.”
Adeyanju’s comments followed figures released by EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, detailing the commission’s activities between October 2023 and June 2026.
Olukoyede said the EFCC recovered more than ₦1.23 trillion, $684.48 million, £373,905.78 and €9.34 million during the period.
He also disclosed that ₦661.32 billion and $492.37 million had been released to beneficiaries, while the commission secured 10,872 convictions from 14,476 cases filed within the period under review.
The figures, Adeyanju said, demonstrated that sustained enforcement could produce tangible results in the fight against corruption.
He consequently urged the commission to sustain the momentum while expanding its attention from the recovery of allegedly stolen assets to the protection of public resources that are still in government coffers.
“The Commission has made commendable progress, but the fight against corruption cannot be won through recoveries alone,” he said.
The issue of state finances has assumed greater importance since the removal of the petrol subsidy, which significantly altered the revenue-sharing position of the three tiers of government.
Data published by the Federal Ministry of Finance in August 2026 estimates subsidy savings across the federation at ₦15.8 trillion, with approximately ₦6.52 trillion attributed to states, compared with ₦5.43 trillion for the Federal Government and ₦3.88 trillion for local governments.
The increased inflows have potentially given state governments greater fiscal room to finance infrastructure, healthcare, education, social programmes, security and other public services.
But the larger the pool of public resources, the greater the demand for transparency over how the money is generated, appropriated and spent.
It is this concern that underpins Adeyanju’s call for closer scrutiny of state revenues.
His argument is not that increased state revenue automatically means wrongdoing. Rather, he is urging anti-corruption authorities to ensure that where credible allegations of financial misconduct emerge, investigators are able to trace public funds through the entire financial chain—from allocation and receipt to expenditure and, where necessary, the final beneficiaries.
The distinction between recovering stolen money and preventing its diversion is central to Adeyanju’s argument.
Recoveries typically occur after investigators have identified suspected financial crimes, traced assets and secured the necessary legal processes to return funds to government or other legitimate beneficiaries.
Prevention, however, requires stronger systems before irregularities occur.
That could include improved financial controls, transparent procurement processes, verifiable project monitoring, proper documentation of government expenditure and closer scrutiny of transactions that raise red flags.
For states receiving substantially higher revenues, effective oversight would also require citizens and institutions to be able to determine whether increased allocations are translating into measurable improvements in public services.
In practical terms, the question is not simply how much money a state receives, but what happens to the money after it enters the state’s financial system.
Adeyanju’s proposal therefore places emphasis on tracing the movement of funds rather than waiting until alleged diversion has already occurred.
The debate also raises broader questions about the role of Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions in monitoring sub-national finances.
State governments have constitutional responsibilities and operate their own budgets and financial structures. Oversight is consequently shared among several institutions, including state Houses of Assembly, auditors-general, accountants-general, procurement bodies and other relevant agencies.
The EFCC, however, has a statutory mandate to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes. Adeyanju’s position is that this mandate should be deployed where there are credible indications that public resources have been unlawfully diverted or misused.
His emphasis on credible allegations is significant because increased scrutiny of public finances must be distinguished from indiscriminate investigation of government expenditure.
Effective anti-corruption enforcement requires evidence, due process and transparent investigation rather than assumptions of wrongdoing based solely on the size of government revenues.
The issue is particularly sensitive because the additional revenue available to governments emerged at a time when Nigerians have been grappling with the economic impact of subsidy removal.
While governments have gained additional fiscal resources, households have simultaneously faced higher costs for transportation, food and other essential goods.
This creates a heightened expectation that additional public revenue should produce visible improvements in the lives of citizens.
For ordinary Nigerians, accountability is therefore not merely a technical question about government accounting. It is about whether public money ultimately delivers roads, hospitals, schools, water, security, jobs and other services.
Where substantial revenues are received but public outcomes remain poor, questions about expenditure naturally become more pronounced.
Adeyanju’s statement ultimately presents the EFCC with a broader challenge: how can the commission maintain its record of asset recoveries and convictions while also contributing to the prevention of financial crimes?
The commission’s reported figures suggest a significant enforcement effort. But the scale of public resources circulating through government institutions means that recovery alone cannot constitute the entire anti-corruption strategy.
A stronger preventive approach could potentially reduce the amount of public money that is lost in the first place.
For Adeyanju, the priority is therefore to move from simply asking where stolen money went to also asking how public money is being managed before it disappears.
His call for the EFCC to “follow the money from allocation to expenditure” places the emphasis squarely on transparency, traceability and accountability.
As states continue to receive increased fiscal inflows in the post-subsidy era, the effectiveness of Nigeria’s anti-corruption campaign may increasingly be judged not only by the amount of money recovered but also by how successfully public institutions prevent the diversion of new resources.
The central question, ultimately, is straightforward: if governments have more public money available, can Nigerians also see more public value from it?
Adeyanju believes the answer should be demonstrated through transparent expenditure, effective oversight and a system in which every naira can be accounted for.
