By Sa’idu Sirajo
Whenever I see some individuals aspiring to lead Katsina State calculating the state’s budgets from 2023 to 2026 and presenting the cumulative figures as the actual money received by the state government through the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) and Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), I wonder whether they understand the basic principles of public finance.
A state budget is an estimate of anticipated revenue and planned expenditure for a particular fiscal year. It is a financial plan that outlines how the government intends to generate and spend public funds to achieve its development objectives. It is not necessarily the actual amount of money received or spent during that period.
There is a fundamental difference between budget estimates, actual revenue receipts and budget performance. These terms should not be used interchangeably, particularly by individuals who aspire to occupy leadership positions and influence public policy.
For instance, adding up Katsina State’s approved budgets from 2023 to 2026 and presenting the total as the actual revenue received by the state during the period is misleading unless the figures are supported by actual revenue records. An approved budget does not automatically translate into an equivalent amount of revenue collected or funds available to the government.
Actual receipts from FAAC, IGR and other revenue sources may differ from initial projections. Similarly, the extent to which budgeted projects and programmes are implemented depends on revenue performance, releases, expenditure and other relevant factors.
This is why budget performance reports are important. The Katsina State Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning publishes budget-related information through the state’s official website, providing members of the public with an avenue to examine government financial performance and track implementation.
Rather than simply adding figures from successive budget documents and presenting the result as money received, anyone seeking to understand the state’s finances should examine the relevant budget estimates alongside actual revenue reports, budget performance statements and expenditure records.
Leadership requires more than calculations; it requires an understanding of what the figures represent.
It is reasonable for opposition parties, aspiring leaders, journalists and citizens to scrutinise government budgets. Indeed, public scrutiny is essential to accountability and democratic governance. However, such scrutiny must be based on accurate interpretation of financial data, not calculations that confuse projected revenue with actual receipts.
One would expect individuals aspiring to lead a state to consult qualified economists, accountants, budget analysts and public finance professionals before making claims about government revenue. Their advisers should help distinguish between what a government planned to receive, what it actually received and what it spent.
Katsina State deserves a political debate grounded in facts, figures and sound economic understanding. Those who wish to lead the state should demonstrate their ability to interpret public financial information correctly and explain it clearly to citizens.
Ultimately, a budget is a financial plan, not proof of the money actually received. Anyone discussing Katsina State’s finances should understand this distinction before drawing conclusions about the government’s revenue and expenditure over the years.
Citizens deserve accurate information, responsible commentary and informed debate about how public resources are generated and utilised.
Sa’id Sirajo is Media Assistant Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning.
