Kebbi's report disagrees with its own table about the size of the cut
Section 1.A says agriculture was cut by . Table 4 shows the ministry fell from to . The gap is .
Two states that publish, one that mostly does not. Comparing them shows what transparency does, and does not, tell you about whether money arrives.
Kebbi and Kaduna share first place on BudgIT's Q2 2026 fiscal transparency league. Nasarawa is 35th of 36. Tap any underlined figure to see where it comes from.
Share of each unit's revised 2025 budget that was spent. Dashed line: whole state, .
Almost the whole ministry budget sits on the headquarters line, and that line spent . The small agencies spent more, of much smaller sums.
Kebbi moved from 11th to joint first on BudgIT's league between Q1 and Q2 2026 ().
The ministry's budget was cut by , or of the original. The report's own text puts the cut at . Whole-state spending reached , with capital at and recurrent at .
Not in the report: releases. ABX has also not yet read the capital-only tables. Both are needed before Kebbi can be scored.
Kaduna agriculture allocation, ₦ billion, one scale. Sources differ in scope; see the note.
The 2026 amount is of the state budget, with going to capital projects, including on the headquarters line. KADA, the extension agency, gets .
BudgIT gives Kaduna , including a Citizens' Budget in local languages.
Definitions matter. The Commissioner gives the ministry's 2025 share as and says agriculture across all ministries is . ABX reports both, labelled by scope.
The 2023 figure () is a Commissioner's statement; the Governor gives . Neither has been checked against the 2023 budget, so ABX does not state a growth multiple. The only recent execution figure is whole-budget: at half-year 2025.
BudgIT's four disclosure tests, Q2 2026. Nasarawa scores .
Only states lack a Citizens' Budget: Nasarawa and Rivers. Because there is none, the agriculture figure here reached ABX through a press report of the governor's speech, not a document a resident could find.
The governor presented a appropriation bill for 2026. It gave Agriculture and Water Resources , reported as . Water is included, so this is not like-for-like with Kebbi or Kaduna.
In the state's pre-budget consultation, residents asked for of the budget to go to agriculture. Farmers are asking. A record of whether they are answered does not exist yet.
Not yet read: the agriculture lines of Nasarawa's quarterly reports, and the passed budget.
The Kampala CAADP Declaration commits governments to at least 10% of annual public expenditure on agrifood systems. Allocation alone flatters states that budget big and spend small.
Read across with care. Kebbi is measured on its 2025 report and the ministry line only. Kaduna and Nasarawa are 2026 budget documents, and Nasarawa includes water. Kampala covers whole agrifood systems, wider than one ministry.
These observations come straight from published government documents. Before ABX publishes formal findings, each state receives them and has 21 days to reply. The question is always why money did not reach farmers, not who took it.
Section 1.A says agriculture was cut by . Table 4 shows the ministry fell from to . The gap is .
The ministry spent of its revised budget. The state as a whole spent . Agora Policy independently puts Kebbi's 2025 implementation at .
A revision means the original allocation was a weak guide to what the state intended to spend.
The parent line records in Q4, which is of the year's spending, in the months when dry-season inputs are bought.
Without releases, nobody can tell whether the treasury held money back or the ministry could not spend what it got. Stakeholders name as a major cause.
No Citizens' Budget, no 2026 contracts on the procurement portal and uneven access to ministry pages ().
If two or more of the index's five components are missing, a state is "not assessable" and the missing documents are named. No score is guessed.
| Indicator | Kebbi | Kaduna | Nasarawa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation shareAgriculture budget ÷ total budget | originalrevised (scored) | 2026 approved | 2026 proposal, includes water |
| Expenditure shareAgriculture spent ÷ total spent: the Kampala test | Not yet read | Not yet read | |
| Execution rateSpent ÷ revised budget | all spending types | Not yet read | Not yet read |
| Budget credibility deviation|Revised − original| ÷ original | Not yet read | Not yet read | |
| Release rateReleased ÷ revised budget | Not published | Not yet assessed | Not yet assessed |
| Verified delivery rateProjects passing all four tests ÷ sampled | No field visit yet | No field visit yet | No field visit yet |
| Quality gradeA audited · C report only · D reconstructed · E unavailable | C | D for allocation; E for execution (work not yet done) | D; E for execution |
Every source is listed, with links, on the Publications page. Rivers is the purest low-disclosure case (); Nasarawa was chosen because its report can be read.