The Governor of Nasarawa State, Abdullahi Sule, has repeatedly argued that anyone who wants to see where the increased revenue from fuel subsidy removal is going should look at the development taking place across Nasarawa State.
The argument is simple: if states are receiving more resources, citizens should be able to see the impact in infrastructure and development.
Over the past three and a half years, Nasarawa has witnessed significant development, with the state government highlighting major investments in roads, flyovers, and other infrastructure.
Even some residents and political supporters who do not belong to the ruling party have acknowledged the visible changes in the state.
More importantly, the Nasarawa example raises a bigger question for Nigeria:
Is the problem always a lack of money?
Perhaps the conversation should also focus on how effectively available resources are converted into projects and public value.
The Nasarawa State Government has repeatedly maintained that many of its major projects were executed without resorting to bank borrowing, presenting this as evidence that available revenue can be deployed effectively when there is proper planning, prioritisation, and execution.
That claim deserves to be examined through government records, budgets, contracts, and independent evidence.
But the broader lesson is important.
Money matters, but how governments use money matters just as much.
Two states can receive significant public revenue and produce completely different results.
One may build infrastructure, expand economic activity, and improve public services.
Another may spend heavily without citizens seeing comparable transformation.
That is why Nigerians should not only ask, “How much money did the government receive?”
We should also ask, “What did the government do with the money?”
How many kilometres of roads were constructed?
How much did they cost?
What was the quality?
How many schools were improved?
