By Idowu Ephraim Faleye
In recent times, certain opposition elements in Ekiti State have taken it upon themselves to distort facts and spread unfounded claims about the state’s debt profile, all in a bid to undermine the credibility of the current administration. These individuals are not acting out of a sincere desire for accountability or development; they are motivated by their inordinate ambitions to seize political power by any means necessary.
Their strategy is simple—paint a grim picture of the state’s finances to discredit the governor and create a false narrative that the state is drowning in debt. However, facts are sacred, and when properly examined, the data tells a very different story, one of prudence, careful financial management, and a well-thought-out debt strategy that contrasts sharply with what these detractors would have the public believe.
A comprehensive look at the debt profiles of all Nigerian states reveals that Ekiti ranks among the lowest borrowers nationwide. While some states have borrowed aggressively, perhaps to justify their large populations, Ekiti has maintained a conservative stance. For instance, Lagos State, Nigeria’s commercial nerve center, tops the debt chart with a staggering loan figure close to N1trillion. This level of borrowing may not come as a surprise given the state’s economic vibrancy and its continuous investment in infrastructure, transportation, and urban development.
Delta, Ogun, Rivers, and Cross River states also feature prominently among Nigeria’s top five borrowers, with debts ranging from around N300billion to N500billion. These states have larger revenue bases and possibly more aggressive spending strategies, but their loan profiles come with their own risks, especially in uncertain economic times.
In comparison, Ekiti’s total debt is significantly lower, a fact that clearly indicates a different fiscal philosophy. The state government has not indulged in reckless borrowing nor has it been enticed by flashy loans that offer quick liquidity at long-term costs. This level of discipline is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate choice to maintain financial stability while exploring meaningful development partnerships. For critics to overlook this and instead push a narrative of fiscal recklessness is not only dishonest but harmful to the collective progress of the state.
Delving deeper into the structure of Ekiti’s debt provides even more clarity. The state’s debt is broadly classified into three categories: bilateral loans, commercial loans, and multilateral loans. Interestingly, bilateral loans constitute 44.87 percent of the total debt. These loans are typically sourced from other governments or development agencies of specific countries. They are usually tied to development initiatives such as agriculture, healthcare, and education. In this context, the state’s choice to access bilateral loans speaks to its interest in long-term growth partnerships and its alignment with international development goals.
Commercial loans are generally sourced from private financial institutions and commercial banks. These loans are easier to access and can provide quick funding for projects. They often carry higher interest rates and shorter repayment periods. This makes them riskier if not properly managed. However, their inclusion in Ekiti’s debt mix reflects the state’s readiness to complement long-term development loans with short-term financing to meet pressing needs. The key, of course, lies in managing these loans prudently to ensure they do not spiral into a debt crisis.
The smallest portion of Ekiti’s debt—just 10.26 percent—comes from multilateral loans. These are sourced from global institutions like the World Bank and the African Development Bank. They are known for their concessional terms, including low interest rates and extended repayment periods. While they may involve rigorous application processes and performance monitoring, they are generally the most favorable types of debt for states with limited revenue. The relatively low share of multilateral loans in Ekiti’s debt portfolio suggests there is room to increase this segment.
It’s important to understand that having debt, in itself, is not a sign of financial mismanagement. In modern public finance, debt is a tool. When used wisely, it enables governments to undertake critical projects that they would otherwise be unable to finance from internally generated revenue or federal allocations. The question is not whether a state has debt, but whether it is borrowing wisely, whether the debt is sustainable, and whether the funds are being used effectively. In Ekiti’s case, all indicators point to a cautious and calculated borrowing strategy. The low debt burden ensures that the state is not overleveraged. This means that even with its current obligations, the state retains enough fiscal space to borrow in the future should the need arise.
Ekiti’s current debt position provides a unique opportunity. With such a low loan burden compared to other states, the government has the flexibility to engage in strategic borrowing without risking its financial health. When loans are linked to measurable outcomes and their benefits are visible to the public, they become an asset rather than a liability.
Still, no debt strategy can be complete without acknowledging the political dimension. Critics will always find something to say, especially when they lack access to accurate data or choose to ignore it. But for the average citizen, what matters most is not the size of the debt but the impact of government policies on their daily lives. Are roads being constructed? Are schools functioning well? Is healthcare accessible? Are jobs being created? These are the metrics that truly matter. And if loans are helping to achieve these goals, then the government should not be vilified for borrowing. Instead, it should be applauded for using all available tools to improve the welfare of its people.
Unfortunately, some voices continue to twist facts to score political points. These individuals are not just attacking a debt figure; they are attacking progress, development, and the hope of the people. But the people of Ekiti are wiser. They know the difference between propaganda and truth. They see the projects being executed. They feel the impact of responsible governance in their communities. And they understand that the development path is not paved with empty promises but with concrete actions—actions that sometimes require borrowing, but always with a clear plan for repayment and a vision for the future.
In closing, it is essential to speak directly to the people of Ekiti. You deserve leaders who tell you the truth, who plan for the future, and who manage your commonwealth with care. The narrative being pushed by those who wish to return to the days of waste and impunity is not just misleading—it is dangerous. Let us not allow falsehood to derail the progress we are making. Let us demand transparency, yes, but let us also be fair in our judgment. Ekiti’s debt is not a burden; it is a tool—one that, if handled with vision and discipline, can be the foundation for a brighter tomorrow. And in this moment of critical decision-making, may truth and progress triumph over selfish ambition and deceit.
•Faleye – ephraimhill01@gmail.com
