Policy experts have expressed outrage over the N6.9 trillion allocated for constituency projects in Nigeria’s 2025 budget, describing it as economically wasteful, politically motivated, and lacking transparency.

BudgIT, a civic tech organisation promoting transparency and accountability in public finance, uncovered 11,122 projects valued at N6.93 trillion that the National Assembly inserted into the 2025 Federal Government Budget.

President Bola Tinubu signed the ?54.99 trillion 2025 Appropriation Bill into law in February, nearly doubling the ?27.5 trillion appropriation for 2024.

This is a significant increase from his earlier proposed ? 49.7 trillion.

The National Assembly approved the budget on February 13 after several revisions, including the President’s request to expand the budget.

According to Tinubu, the increase was driven by ?1.4tn in additional revenue from the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), ?1.2 trillion from the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), and ?1.8 trillion generated by other government-owned agencies.

A breakdown of the entire budget shows that total expenditure, ?54.99 trillion; Statutory transfers, ?3.65 trillion; Recurrent (non-debt) expenditure, ?13.64 trillion; Capital expenditure, ?23.96 trillion; Debt servicing, ?14.32 trillion; and the Deficit-to-GDP ratio at 1.52%

He originally presented the budget on December 18, 2024, branding it “The Restoration Budget: Securing Peace, Building Prosperity.”

BudgIT lamented that what started as isolated irregularities in budget implementation has become a deeply entrenched culture of exploitation, hijacked by powerful political interests particularly top-ranking National Assembly members.

Their analysis revealed that 238 projects above N5 billion each, totalling N2.29 trillion, were inserted without justification.

It revealed that 984 projects valued at N1.71 trillion, 1,119 projects between N500 million and N1 billion, totalling N641.38 billion.

These insertions, far from serving national development, appear to cater to narrow political agendas.

A closer look shows that 3,573 projects worth N653.19 billion targeted at federal constituencies; 1,972 projects worth N444.04 billion targeted at senatorial districts.

Also, 1,477 streetlight projects costing N393.29 billion; 538 boreholes worth N114.53 billion; 2,122 ICT projects at N505.79 billion and another N6.74 billion earmarked for the “empowerment of traditional rulers”.

Most alarming, 39% of all insertions, 4,371 projects worth N1.72 trillion were packed into the Ministry of Agriculture, inflating its capital allocation from N242.5 billion to N1.95 trillion.

Similar distortions affected the Ministries of Science and Technology (N994.98 billion) and Budget and Economic Planning (N1.1 trillion).

Even more disturbing is the misuse of agencies such as the Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute (Lagos) and the Federal Cooperative College, Oji River, as dumping grounds for constituency projects despite their lack of technical capacity.

For instance, the Federal Cooperative College, Oji River received allocations for N3 billion for utility vehicles, N1.5 billion for rural electrification in Rivers State, N1 billion for solar streetlights in Enugu State.

These projects fall far outside the college’s core mandate and represent gross misalignment with national development goals.

Gabriel Okeowo, BudgIT’s Country Director, emphasized the urgent need for integrity in Nigeria’s budget process.

“The insertion of over 11,000 projects worth N6.93 trillion into the 2025 budget by the National Assembly is not just alarming, it is an assault on fiscal responsibility.

“Nigeria cannot afford to run a government of projects without purpose. We urgently need transparency, constitutional clarity, and a return to evidence-based planning that puts citizens, not politics, at the centre of the budget.”

BudgIT called on President Tinubu to lead a reform of the budgeting process aligned with the Medium-Term National Development Plan (2021–2025).

The Attorney General is to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the scope of legislative appropriation powers, and the EFCC and ICPC are to investigate these insertions and ensure accountability.

BudgIT further noted that the National Assembly has turned some agencies into “project warehouses”.

It explained that the Federal Cooperative College, Oji River has 1,142 projects worth N320 billion; Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute has 856 projects for N406 billion.

Most of these institutions lack the capacity to execute such projects, leading to widespread inefficiencies and waste.

Agencies and their project allocations include: Federal College of Horticulture, Dadin-Kowa, Gombe, got 635 projects worth N181.74 billion; Federal Co-Operative College, Ibadan, got 317 projects worth N190.89 billion; National Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation, Ilorin, had 254 projects with N83.65 billion.

Also, the Nigerian Institute of Oceanography and Marine Research was loaded with 161 projects amounting to N78.98bn.

Charles Sani, an economist, said that although constituency projects could serve developmental purposes, the current implementation approach in Nigeria amounts to “sub-optimal expenditure” and a “political bargaining chip” between the executive and legislature.

“It is a good intention,” Sani acknowledged, “but when you look at it very well, are they doing what they are meant to do?”

He noted that the magnitude of the amount, N6.9 trillion, is significant relative to the overall national budget and raised critical questions about the effectiveness, transparency, and accountability mechanisms surrounding the projects.

“It is the job of the legislature to appropriate while the executive spends the money. And there are three tiers: Federal, state, and local government.

“When you take money from the first tier, the federal government, and send it to the third tier, the local community or the constituency of a legislator, then why don’t you send it through the local government?” he asked.

“If you want, you could, for instance, create a national grassroots initiative commission, let it be accountable. Let the people see it and say, ‘Oh, this is actually what was projected. This is what it was used for.”

Sani said the current model of project implementation lacks proper oversight and has encouraged inefficiency and corruption.

“I have seen a situation where people who collected these constituency projects never deliver. Even the people don’t even know,” he said. “I saw a particular local government constituency project profile for someone in the House of Representatives. The road to the man’s house is bad. And it’s been awarded. The money has been released not once, not twice. Every year, you see some of those same projects repeating themselves.”

He described such repeated and incomplete projects as “economic wastage,” adding, “Anything that you cannot measure and be accounted for doesn’t make sense.”

Sani argued that if properly structured, constituency projects could be used to address critical issues like unemployment through investments in cottage industries, similar to models in India and Indonesia.

“If you say, ‘This is how much you want to give to this constituency for this project,’ then they set it up as a cottage industry that drives GDP, income, and employment. But instead, you hear, ‘I need empowerment,’ and they go and buy wheelbarrows or sewing machines. Is that what we really want as a nation?”

He noted that any reform attempt would face strong resistance because the current system has become entrenched in political patronage and personal benefit.

“It’s a slush money situation, where I use it to cover up my expenses or maintain my status. It must take strong political will from the presidency to say, ‘I’m going to stand by this,’” he said.

“If we want change,” Sani warned, “whoever becomes President and is ready to change must be ready for a fight.”

“But as it is now, it’s a political bargain. Rub my back, I’ll rub your back.”

Faith Nwadishi, Executive Director of the Centre for Transparency Advocacy, also faulted the way constituency projects are implemented in Nigeria, blaming both the structure and citizens’ misunderstanding of legislative responsibilities.

“The problem we have is that citizens don’t really understand the role of legislators,” she said.

“So, you go to the community and ask people, ‘Who is your representative?’ They say, ‘This legislator has not brought a project.’ Even if you pass 1,000 bills, they will say you are not performing.”

She explained that many Nigerians conflate the responsibilities of legislators and executives, expecting lawmakers to deliver physical infrastructure rather than perform their oversight and lawmaking duties.

“But going above that,” she added, “constituency projects have become another way of corrupt practices at the legislative level.”

According to Nwadishi, while it is common in democracies for legislators to influence the siting of projects in their constituencies, the Nigerian model has been distorted to allow direct control and execution by lawmakers, often with minimal consultation with the communities involved.

She explained, “One thing people must understand is that constituency projects are done all over the world with the legislators, depending on how influential you are.

“Sometimes in some other climes, what they do is that they influence projects to be put into the budget from their constituency.

“But you have a situation where you have some legislators who don’t even have a constituency office within their constituencies.

“One, if you take the issue of the insecurity we have in this country, there are some legislators who don’t even go back to their constituency to consult. So the issue of constituency project is supposed to be consultation, what is the priority of the people?”

“What they have now done is give this project to the legislator and let him or her play oversight,” she said. “But what do you see? The legislator gives the project to a company he or she owns, though hidden under proxies, and at the end, the project is not delivered.”

She pointed to efforts by anti-graft agencies such as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Fiscal Responsibility Commission (FRC) to monitor projects, but noted that these efforts often expose more failures than successes.

“Reports over time have shown that either these projects are not up to standard, not even started at all, or the money for the project is diverted,” she said.

Nwadishi called for stronger structures and reforms to ensure proper accountability, including clearer demarcation of roles between the arms of government and public enlightenment to help citizens better engage lawmakers.

“Legislators don’t need to pack these projects the way we are seeing in budget reports. There should be proper oversight and education,” she stressed.

She also questioned the justification for large allocations to constituency projects when federal, state, and local governments are all supposed to execute capital development initiatives.

“We already have local government autonomy that says the federal government must pay money directly to local governments. Have we seen that in action?” she asked. “What is the level of budget performance at all levels?”

Nwadishi concluded that the volume of constituency project allocations raises suspicion of ulterior motives.

“What is the justification for them to put that money? Is it to bridge the gap of underdevelopment? Or to amass money for the next election?”

Nwadishi criticised the current practice of budget padding by lawmakers under the guise of constituency projects, saying, “The issue of constituency projects should be properly structured. It should be properly structured such that you will see the money in the budget. Legislators don’t need to pack these projects like we have seen from the budget reports.”

She highlighted the lack of clarity on project implementation and oversight. “You will see that there’s an agency that is taking care of that, and it’s a proper oversight to speak on that,” she noted, insisting that transparency is vital for effective service delivery.

Beyond budgetary concerns, Nwadishi underscored a fundamental problem in public understanding of government responsibilities. “We need to educate the people. What is the role of a legislator? What is the role of an executive? What is the role of judiciary?” she asked.

She lamented the frequent confusion of government roles, citing examples such as the misconception that commissioners of justice are part of the judiciary. “The Commissioner of Justice is not the judiciary, it’s executive,” she stressed.

“A chief judge shouldn’t even have any contact with people [in terms of projects]. But villagers are expecting the chief judge to donate tricycles or execute constituency projects to show that he has arrived.”

This misunderstanding, Nwadishi argued, distorts democratic expectations and encourages tokenism over policy-making.

“You will have a legislator in the House who has never moved a motion but is going back to his constituency, giving KK [tricycles], doing one thing or the other. That legislator will always be voted back. But the legislator that is on the floor, moving motions, they say he’s not performing, he’s only speaking English.”

She linked this poor civic awareness to systemic corruption in the budget process. “There has to be proper education on the different roles of government that can help address the corruption in constituency projects, because people are desperate. People want to return, especially when you have a law that says, as a legislator at the national level, you can stay there indefinitely.”

Nwadishi also questioned the actual impact of constituency projects. “What have we seen? Have these projects been implemented? What impact have they made within those communities where these projects are supposed to be?”

According to her, low-budget implementation across government levels undermines development. “You have federal, state, and local governments all budgeting for projects, but when you check how much is released, it’s less than 50%. That translates to no development. So, what is the justification for legislators putting money? Are they bridging development gaps or stockpiling campaign funds?”

She called for stricter monitoring by oversight agencies. “We need to call out agencies like the ICPC, Fiscal Responsibility Commission… Let citizens know what is happening. If every year, you do budget performance analysis, you should also do constituency project utilisation analysis.”

Nwadishi urged the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Fiscal Responsibility Commission (FRC), the Ministry of Finance, and the National Assembly Budget and Research Office (NABRO) to play stronger roles. “NABRO is responsible for putting up the National Assembly Budget, and constituency projects form part of that. So what is the feedback they are giving us to justify increasing those projects?”

She challenged the sustainability of annual project allocations for legislators.

“Somebody is in office for four years. Do you need to give the person a project every year, when people don’t even see those projects? Because those who are supposed to track and evaluate them are not doing their jobs.”

Nwadishi advocated for needs assessments and community prioritisation before any project is included in the budget.

“You should be able to get a needs assessment within your constituency, prioritise the projects, and influence your people to see how that can come into either the state, local government, or federal government budget,” she said. (BusinessDay)