A Response to the Defence of Edo State’s 2026 Phillips Consulting Performance Ranking
The publication of the 2026 Phillips Consulting State Performance Index (pSPI) has understandably generated robust debate across Nigeria. Independent assessments of governance often do. Such reports are not infallible, but they serve an important purpose: they provide governments and citizens with an opportunity for introspection.
Recently, a serving Commissioner in the Edo State Government released what he described as an “independent professional review” of the report. His paper is articulate, well researched and raises legitimate questions about aspects of the report’s methodology. Every governance index can and should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
However, scrutiny should not become a substitute for accountability.
More importantly, criticism of methodology should not become an attempt to explain away uncomfortable findings without equally confronting the issues those findings raise.
Independence Requires More Than a Disclaimer
The author repeatedly emphasises that he writes in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the Edo State Government.
That disclaimer deserves respect.
Yet readers are equally entitled to recognise an obvious reality: a serving Commissioner is a senior member of the administration whose performance is under examination. No matter how professionally written, such a review cannot enjoy the same presumption of independence as one conducted by an academic institution, a professional association or an external policy research organisation with no stake in the outcome.
This does not invalidate his arguments. It simply means they should be read with an appreciation of the institutional interest that inevitably exists.
You Cannot Reject the Methodology and Simultaneously Rely on It
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the review lies in its internal inconsistency.
On one hand, it argues that the methodology is incomplete because it should measure more variables, employ broader indicators and adopt different measures of debt sustainability.
Those are reasonable academic observations.
On the other hand, the same review relies on that very methodology to conclude that Edo’s poor performance should be attributed almost entirely to the previous administration.
That presents a contradiction.
If the methodology is too limited to justify Phillips Consulting’s conclusions, it is equally too limited to support the commissioner’s own conclusions about inherited responsibility.
One cannot dismiss the rules of measurement only to embrace them when they produce a more politically convenient explanation.
The “Inherited Problem” Argument Is Only Partly Convincing
The commissioner correctly notes that Governor Monday Okpebholo assumed office on 12 November 2024 and therefore inherited much of the FY2024 fiscal position reflected in the report.
No fair-minded observer would dispute that.
Indeed, debt levels, audited financial statements, internally generated revenue and budget implementation for 2024 were substantially determined before the current administration took office.
However, the review largely overlooks an equally important fact.
The report also incorporates citizen satisfaction measured in 2026.
Unlike debt, public perception cannot simply be inherited.
By the time those surveys were conducted, the current administration had been in office for well over a year. Citizens were responding to what they were seeing, experiencing and feeling at the time of the survey.
Whether one agrees with those perceptions or not, they cannot reasonably be attributed entirely to a government that had already left office.
The Report Never Says Edo Is the Worst Governed State
Another important clarification is necessary.
The Phillips Consulting report does not declare Edo to be Nigeria’s worst governed state.
It measures momentum—how much progress a state made relative to others during the assessment period.
Those are two different propositions.
Unfortunately, much of the commissioner’s paper appears to rebut a claim the report itself does not make.
The more useful question is not whether Edo is the worst governed state.
The real question is why Edo recorded the weakest momentum under the methodology applied uniformly to every state.
Methodological Improvements Are Not Refutations
The commissioner recommends broader measures of transparency, more comprehensive debt sustainability indicators and additional revenue metrics.
These are sensible suggestions.
Phillips Consulting should certainly consider them.
But recommending improvements for future editions does not invalidate the present edition.
No governance index is perfect.
The United Nations continuously refines the Human Development Index.
Transparency International regularly reviews its Corruption Perceptions Index.
The World Bank has repeatedly revised its governance indicators.
Yet governments rarely dismiss these reports simply because improvements are possible.
Constructive criticism strengthens an index; it does not necessarily discredit it.
The Question That Remains Unanswered
Perhaps the most significant omission in the commissioner’s review is the question every Edo citizen should be asking.
If every state was assessed using the same methodology, why did some states demonstrate significantly stronger momentum than others?
Enugu, Jigawa, Abia and Osun were assessed using exactly the same framework.
Why did they perform better?
That question deserves as much attention as debates over methodology.
The Appropriate Response
Good governments do not fear measurement.
Neither should they become defensive whenever an independent assessment produces uncomfortable findings.
The proper response is to study the report carefully, identify genuine weaknesses, engage constructively with its authors where necessary and, above all, improve performance before the next assessment.
History shows that governments earn public confidence not by winning arguments over methodology but by producing measurable improvements that render future criticisms obsolete.
Every governance index has limitations.
Every methodology can be refined.
Every ranking can be debated.
But independent assessments are, in many respects, mirrors.
Some mirrors flatter.
Some magnify imperfections.
Others reveal uncomfortable truths.
The wisest response is not to smash the mirror because we dislike the reflection.
It is to improve the reflection itself.
If Edo State believes this report does not accurately reflect its true potential, then the challenge before the government is clear: deliver better outcomes, improve public confidence, strengthen fiscal performance and let future assessments tell a different story.
Leave a Reply