Six regional development commissions now exist across Nigeria’s geopolitical zones, collectively controlling hundreds of billions of naira in public resources. Created to address long standing developmental imbalances and fast track infrastructure and economic growth, the commissions represent one of the most ambitious federal interventions in recent years.

A growing number of stakeholders are questioning whether the regional commissions are delivering development or merely expanding Nigeria’s bureaucracy. However, one of the criticisms of regional development commissions is that their mandates overlap significantly with those of federal ministries, state governments and intervention agencies.

For instance, road construction is already undertaken by the Federal Ministry of Works and state governments. Agricultural development is handled by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and state ministries. Environmental remediation is addressed by various environmental agencies.

Critics therefore argue that the commissions risk becoming additional bureaucratic structures unless they clearly define their comparative advantage and demonstrate superior delivery. On the contrary, some people insist that the commissions provide regional coordination that conventional ministries are unable to offer.

A few weeks ago, members of the National Assembly raised concerns over certain expenditures by the South East Development Commission (SEDC), including questions surrounding budget implementation and administrative spending.

The recent concerns raised by the lawmakers have generated questions about whether the Commission is devoting sufficient attention to its core developmental mandate. The concerns reportedly centred on administrative expenditures, including office accommodation costs and spending on conferences and engagements within and outside the country.

President Bola Tinubu signed into law the establishment of additional regional development commissions, thus expanding an effort that began with the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) in 2000 and the North East Development Commission (NEDC) in 2017.

For the NDDC, the sole mandate was to facilitate the development of the oil rich Niger Delta region of Nigeria. More than two decades after its establishment, the NDDC remains one of Nigeria’s most controversial intervention agencies, with its achievements often overshadowed by recurring allegations of corruption, project abandonment and financial mismanagement.

In 2017, late President Muhammadu Buhari established the NEDC to spearhead the rehabilitation, reconstruction and long term economic development of Nigeria’s insurgency ravaged North East region.

The establishment of the NEDC prompted demands from other geopolitical zones for similar intervention agencies, while political leaders argued that every region faced unique developmental challenges requiring dedicated institutional responses.

That gave birth to a gradual expansion of the regional commissions, perhaps to reassure regions that the federal government recognises their peculiar challenges and is willing to invest in addressing them. The move, however, marked a significant shift in the approach to governance and development.

Reasons behind establishment

The idea behind regional development commissions was rooted in the belief that development challenges are often regional rather than merely state specific.

For decades, successive governments have struggled to improve citizens’ lives through public spending that ought to bring meaningful transformation to the people. Despite the existence of ministries, departments and agencies at federal and state levels, large sections of the country remain plagued by poor infrastructure, weak healthcare systems, inadequate educational facilities, environmental degradation, unemployment and poverty.

Unlike the NEDC, which was established in response to a clearly defined crisis created by insurgency, many of the newer regional commissions were created to address broad developmental challenges that overlap with the responsibilities of existing government institutions. Hence, the creation of regional development commissions became an obvious admission that existing governance structures have not sufficiently addressed regional developmental challenges.

For instance, a road linking multiple states cannot be effectively planned by one state government alone. Erosion affecting communities across several South East states requires coordinated intervention. Similarly, desertification in the North West, flooding in the North Central region, coastal erosion in the South South and transportation integration in the South West all transcend state boundaries.

The expectations

Each of the Commissions has a mandate that was designed based on peculiarities and unique priorities.

South East Development Commission (SEDC)

The SEDC was expected to drive regional industrialisation of the South East, considering the uniqueness of the people who are deeply known, globally, for commerce.

The Commission was also expected to complement the efforts of the state governments in erosion control, road infrastructure, power projects, technology hubs and support for small and medium enterprises. But the recent concerns raised at the National Assembly have nevertheless triggered debate over whether the commission is placing sufficient emphasis on its developmental mandate.

South West Development Commission (SWDC)

The South West Development Commission (SWDC) was expected to prioritise transportation networks, particularly rail transportation, economic corridors, urban planning and technology driven growth. Beyond transportation, stakeholders expect the SWDC to facilitate regional economic integration, support innovation ecosystems and address urban infrastructure deficits associated with rapid population growth.

South South Development Commission (SSDC)

The people expect the South South Development Commission (SSDC) to pay serious attention to environmental challenges, coastal protection, maritime infrastructure and economic diversification beyond oil. The SSDC faces the challenge of proving that it can succeed where the NDDC has struggled. Environmental degradation, coastal erosion and economic diversification remain key priorities.

North East Development Commission (NEDC)

The NEDC was saddled with the responsibilities of reconstruction, rehabilitation, resettlement and economic recovery in conflict affected communities.

North West Development Commission (NWDC)

Agriculture, rural infrastructure, security linked development interventions and youth empowerment should dominate the agenda of the North West Development Commission (NWDC). The NWDC also faces the most urgent development challenge after the North East. There is obvious rising insecurity, poverty, low school enrolment and weak rural infrastructure in the region. This makes its mandate particularly important. Hence, its success will largely depend on whether it can support agriculture, rural development and youth employment programmes capable of reducing the region’s socio economic vulnerabilities.

North Central Development Commission (NCDC)

For the North Central Development Commission (NCDC), priority areas include agriculture, mining, transportation infrastructure and interventions aimed at addressing farmer herder conflicts. The North Central region’s vast agricultural potential, solid minerals deposits and recurring communal conflicts place enormous expectations on the NCDC as a catalyst for economic growth and social stability.

The real test

The establishment of the regional development commissions was an indication that traditional governance structures were perceived as insufficient to address regional challenges. However, their existence can only be justified if they deliver results that citizens can see and feel.

Available records show that the NEDC has executed road projects, school reconstruction programmes, healthcare interventions and support schemes for displaced communities across the North East. Sadly, questions are already emerging as to whether some of the newer commissions will remain focused on their developmental mandates or become consumed by administrative activities.

They are, however, expected to move quickly beyond boardroom activities and ceremonial engagements because, ultimately, development is not measured by conferences held in Abuja, Lagos, London or Washington. It is measured by what changes in Aba, Enugu, Ibadan, Kano, Makurdi, Uyo, Maiduguri and hundreds of communities that these commissions were created to serve.

Modest Achievements So Far

While many of the newer commissions are still in their infancy, some modest achievements have begun to emerge. The NEDC remains the most active among the regional commissions. Since its establishment in 2017, it has undertaken reconstruction of schools and healthcare facilities, rehabilitation of roads, construction of housing projects for displaced persons and educational support programmes across the insurgency affected North East.

Similarly, the NDDC has also delivered several road projects, electrification programmes, skills acquisition schemes and educational interventions, both local and foreign, although these achievements have often been overshadowed by allegations of corruption and project abandonment.

Undoubtedly, the newer commissions, including the SEDC, SWDC, SSDC, NWDC and NCDC, are yet to establish a substantial portfolio of completed projects capable of convincing sceptics that they represent a departure from previous intervention agencies.

Obviously, the challenge is not merely to announce programmes but to demonstrate visible impact.

Shortcomings

Given that many of the newer commissions are still in their formative stages, questions remain about how quickly they can translate their mandates into visible development outcomes. Obviously, the real danger facing Nigeria’s regional development commissions is not lack of funding or political support. It is the possibility of losing sight of their original purpose.

The commissions were not created to organise conferences, as recently highlighted at the National Assembly by members of the Senate Committee on SEDC, neither were they created to hold endless stakeholder engagements. They were not created to expand government bureaucracy. Rather, they were created because millions of Nigerians continue to live with poor infrastructure, unemployment, poverty and limited economic opportunities despite decades of public spending.

To this end, their success will therefore be measured not by the number of meetings held but by the number of lives transformed. If they become catalysts for regional industrialisation, infrastructure renewal and economic growth, they could emerge as one of Nigeria’s most important development innovations.

If not, they risk becoming expensive administrative structures that duplicate the functions of existing government agencies while delivering little measurable impact. That seems to be the challenge now confronting every regional development commission in Nigeria.

For instance, the SEDC, which was in the news recently for the wrong reasons, illustrates this tension well. Such a commission, dedicated solely to the South East, should theoretically understand the region’s peculiar challenges better than a federal ministry operating from Abuja. Likewise, agencies devoted to the North West, South West or South South should be able to design targeted interventions based on local realities.

No commission currently faces greater public expectations than the SEDC because the region has long complained of infrastructure neglect, inadequate federal investments and limited industrial support.

In the South East, major federal highways remain in poor condition. Erosion continues to threaten communities. Manufacturing clusters struggle with electricity shortages. Youth unemployment remains high despite the entrepreneurial culture of the region. Given these realities, many observers expected the commission to immediately prioritise large scale developmental projects.

Instead, public attention has often focused on stakeholder consultations, strategic meetings, international investment engagements and policy dialogues. These activities may be necessary in the early stages of institutional development. However, critics argue that the commission’s credibility will ultimately depend on visible projects.

The challenge before the commissions is not merely one of funding but of credibility. Unlike conventional ministries that operate within annual budget cycles, development commissions were created as special intervention agencies with a mandate to deliver visible and accelerated results. Their legitimacy therefore depends on their ability to demonstrate impact that citizens can easily identify and measure.

Funding will remain a critical determinant of success. While the commissions have been allocated substantial resources, experience from previous intervention agencies suggests that funding alone doeås not guarantee results. Effective governance, transparency and project execution are equally important.

Nevertheless, the ultimate test of the regional development commissions will not be the number of offices opened, meetings held or international partnerships announced. Their success will be measured by roads completed, erosion sites reclaimed, industries supported, schools rebuilt, jobs created and communities transformed. Without measurable outcomes, the commissions risk joining the long list of intervention agencies that consumed public resources without fundamentally altering the lives of the people they were created to serve. (The Sun)