Lawyers have expressed deep concerns over the recent allegations by a civic-tech organization, BudgIT, that members of the National Assembly inserted N6.93 trillion worth of questionable projects into the 2025 federal budget. To end the menace, the lawyers recommended institutional reforms and accountability mechanisms for the tracking of projects implementation from budgeting to execution. AKEEM NAFIU reports
The recent allegations by BudgIT, a civic-tech organisation focused on budget transparency and accountability across Africa, that federal lawmakers inserted N6.93 trillion worth of projects into Nigeria’s 2025 budget has drew the ire of some senior lawyers.
The lawyers while speaking on the issue at the weekend emphasised the need to approach BudgIT’s claims with both seriousness and caution. While noting that budget padding have been around for a long time, and no president has dared to challenge it, the lawyers said the scale of the alleged insertions could have created jobs for 10 million Nigerians earning N200,000 monthly.
Speaking on how to curb the menace, the lawyers advocated for more legislative activism and citizen engagement, saying when laws evolve to address peculiar challenges, and citizens remain engaged, systemic corruption like budget padding becomes harder to sustain.
BudgIT had in an 18-page report said it had uncovered how N6.93 trillion worth of projects were illegally inserted into the 2025 national budget by the National Assembly.
In the report, the organisation indicated that the National Assembly inserted 11,122 projects representing 12.5 per cent of the N54.99 trillion signed budget without adequate justification or alignment with national development goals. The report further indicated that a significant portion of the budget expansion was influenced by legislative insertions.
For instance, 238 projects exceeding N5 billion each, totalling N2.29 trillion, were added with little or no justification. Besides, 984 projects worth N1.71 trillion and 1,119 projects valued between N500 million and N1 billion (totalling N641.38 billion) were said to have been arbitrarily inserted. Another 3,573 projects worth N653.19 billion were alleged to have been assigned to federal constituencies, while 1,972 projects valued at N444.04 billion were also earmarked for senatorial districts.
The report also highlighted numerous questionable project allocations, such as 1,477 streetlight installations at a cost of N393.29 billion, 538 borehole projects worth N114.53 billion, 2,122 ICT-related projects totalling N505.79 billion and N6.74 billion allocated for the “empowerment of traditional rulers”. These projects, according to BudgIT, lacked clear links to national priorities or developmental objectives.
In the report, BudgIT also alleged disproportionate inflation of the Ministry of Agriculture’s capital budget. The ministry’s initial allocation of N242.5 billion was increased to N1.95 trillion following the insertion of 4,371 projects worth N1.72 trillion, making up 39 per cent of all insertions. The report also alleged similar inflations in the budget of the Ministry of Science and Technology with a total allocation of N994.98 billion.
Lawmakers pad budgets to ensure projects are tied to their names for electoral advantage
The allocation to the Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning was also said to have been increased to N1.1 trillion. BudgIT also reported numerous instances of Federal Government Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) being assigned projects outside their legal or operational mandates.
The affected institutions are; Federal Co-operative College, Oji River, National Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation (NCAM), Ilorin and Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute, Lagos. For instance, NCAM was said to have been tasked with administering N400 million for scholarships and N350 million for a community health insurance scheme in Bayelsa West, functions far removed from its core responsibilities.
In tackling the menace, BudgIT suggested a structured, transparent, and collaborative framework for including constituency projects that align with national development priorities. It also urged President Tinubu to demonstrate good executive leadership by initiating reforms to restore integrity to the budgeting process.
“These discrepancies underscore the urgent need for budgetary reform anchored in data transparency, independent verification of project costs, and a standardised mechanism for tracking the implementation and impact of constituency projects. “Without such reforms, the budgeting process risks being dominated by political patronage rather than national development goals”, BudgIT stated.
NASS’ denial
In the meantime, the National Assembly has faulted the allegations by BudgIT, saying they emanated from ignorance of legislative procedures. A statement issued by the Chairman of Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Yemi Adaramodu (APC, Ekiti South), said the lawmakers were constitutionally empowered to amend the budget. He described BudgIT report as the “handiwork of dark angels of falsehood”. .
”The 2025 Appropriation Bill was presented by the executive and was interrogated and passed based on the exact amount presented. The dark angels of falsehood and public discord are only interested in stirring disaffection against the National Assembly”. Adaramodu said.
On his part, Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Committee on National Planning and Economic Development, Clement Jimbo, also firmly denied the allegations. “I completely disagree with them (BudgIT). It is completely based on ignorance. The executive cannot send a budget of N50 billion and we just approve N50 billion. It is practically impossible. If we did that, we would be reducing ourselves to mere rubber stamps.
“The budget the Presidency sends to the National Assembly is called an estimate. It is not yet law until we pass it. If what the executive sends to us is not in tandem with the aspirations of Nigerians, we can change it. That power is the exclusive right of the National Assembly”, Jimbo argued.
Budget padding controversies
Prior to the latest allegations by BudgIT, a number of controversies regarding budget padding have emanated in the past. The most recent was in 2024 when Senator Abdul Ningi (PDP, Bauchi Central) alleged that the national budget was padded by N3.7 trillion.
The allegation earned the senator a suspension from the red chamber after its denial by the Senate. However, Senator Ningi was later recalled to the chamber.
From 2019 to 2023, successive budgets under former President Muhammadu Buhari were marred by repeated padding allegations. For instance, in 2019, the former president accused the lawmakers of increasing the budget by about N90 billion. In 2020, Buhari’s administration also alleged that about N264 billion irrelevant projects were inserted into MDAs’ activities by the National Assembly.
Similar allegation was equally raised in 2021 with claims that over N500 billion worth of vague or duplicated projects were illegally inserted into the budget. In 2022, the Buhari’s administration equally alleged unjustified insertions amounting to N36.59 billion in the budget, while In 2023, lawmakers were accused of inserting projects worth N770.72 billion.
MDAs’ budgets were equally said to have been increased to N58.55 billion without executive approval. During Buhari’s first term, Abdulmumin Jibrin, the then Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, accused the House Speaker, Yakubu Dogara and other lawmakers of inserting projects worth N40 billion into the budget for personal gain. The allegation generated heated controversies for months, while Jibrin was suspended.
The lawmaker’s suspension was later voided by the court. In 2000, Former President Olusegun Obasanjo rejected the Appropriation Bill, after accusing the National Assembly of inflating it by N2 billion, including an unauthorised increase in its allocation.
Allegation of budget padding also reared its ugly head in 2011 when former President Goodluck Jonathan refused to sign the budget due to an increase in the National Assembly’s allocation from N120 billion to N232.74 billion. A compromise of N150 billion was later reached after closed-door negotiations.
Lawyers speak
In what could be one of the most significant budgetary scandals in Nigeria’s recent history, BudgIT, a civic-tech organisation advocating for transparency and accountability in public finance, alleged that members of the National Assembly inserted N6.93 trillion worth of questionable projects into the 2025 federal budget.
The report has sparked public outrage and renewed national debate over budget integrity, legislative accountability, and the deepening socioeconomic crisis in Nigeria. Prominent legal experts, including Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), have equally weighed in on the implications of the alleged budget padding, urging for transparency and accountability at the highest levels of government.
Speaking on the development, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr Abiodun Layonu, emphasised the need to approach BudgIT’s claims with both seriousness and caution. “He who asserts must prove,” he noted.
While applauding the organisation’s efforts in investigative research, Layonu stressed that proper steps must follow such a revelation. “They should submit a petition to the National Assembly, to the EFCC, and to the courts if necessary. “Let it go viral, let the public scrutinise it,” he said, insisting that all parties, including the National Assembly, deserve a fair hearing.
Layonu also pointed out the need to differentiate between alleged budget padding and constituency projects that are agreed upon by both the legislature and the executive. “If these insertions were made with the consent of the executive, then one must question whether they are irregular or fraudulent. “The president, upon receiving the budget, should decline assent if there are dubious insertions,” he said.
He concluded by emphasising the necessity of transparency, civic engagement and institutional integrity in fighting corruption: “The more openness you bring into the transaction, the more informed Nigerians will be.” Dr Layonu sees a possible path forward through civic pressure and legal action, A more forceful view came from Amobi Nzelu, another SAN, who lambasted the National Assembly for perpetuating what he called “ungodly” practices.
“Budget padding has been around for a long time, and no president has dared to challenge it. “The National Assembly behaves like a house of rogues. They are not there for the people,” he said. Nzelu accused the presidency of complicity, suggesting that top officials benefit from the padded budgets.
“They pack enough money into these budgets to transform the country, but instead, they loot the treasury dry,” he alleged. According to him, the scale of the insertions could have created jobs for 10 million Nigerians earning N200,000 monthly. “Instead, they prefer to enrich themselves while the majority suffer,” he said.
On the question of reform, Nzelu painted a bleak picture. “When the head is corrupt, the whole system is corrupt. “Budget padding will not end unless the presidency leads by example,” he declared. Nzelu, speaking with visible frustration, said, “They have legitimised starvation in this country.
Seventy-five per cent of Nigerians go to bed hungry. How can such leaders be blessed by God?” He argued that the scale of fraud is unprecedented. “Some lawmakers allocate N500 million to N800 million to themselves under the guise of constituency projects. Even the presidency reportedly has billions inserted for the same,” he said. Nzelu believes real change must start from the top.
“If the president is not corrupt, and his family is not corrupt, others will follow. “But when the leadership is complicit, how can they throw stones,” he argued? Another legal voice, Mba Ukweni, SAN, warned that budget padding, whether by design or default, contributed significantly to Nigeria’s deep-rooted corruption.
Anything done improperly, especially in public finance, constitutes corruption. Budget padding encourages such behaviour,” he said. Ukweni criticised the encroachment of the legislature into executive functions, particularly through project insertions.
“In advanced democracies, lawmakers do not execute road construction or electrification projects, that’s for the executive,” he stated. He attributed the trend to political self-preservation. “Lawmakers pad budgets to ensure projects are tied to their names, not because they want to serve, but to secure electoral advantage,” he argued.
To end the menace, Ukweni recommended a return to constitutional order. “Each arm of government should stick to its functions. “When the executive implements the budget faithfully, the legislature won’t need to encroach.” Ukweni said, “Such financial misappropriation widens the inequality gap and stifles development.
Budget padding will not end unless the presidency leads by example
“It explains why millions of youths remain jobless, why roads remain unpaved, and why basic amenities are still luxuries in most communities”.
In his views, human rights lawyer, Chief Malachy Ugwummadụ, placed the issue within the broader context of Nigeria’s socio-political objectives as outlined in Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which mandates the state to eliminate corruption and abuse of power.
He noted that despite the existence of various anti-corruption agencies, EFCC, ICPC, and the Code of Conduct Bureau, corruption persists, partly due to legislative loopholes and poor implementation. “We must strengthen the legal framework.
Many of our laws do not go far enough. Until recently, you couldn’t confiscate proceeds of crime without a conviction,” he explained, referencing the introduction of civil forfeiture mechanisms. Ugwummadụ advocated for more legislative activism and citizen engagement.
“When laws evolve to address our peculiar challenges, and citizens remain engaged, systemic corruption like budget padding becomes harder to sustain,” he said. The human rights lawyer agreed that the implications of budget padding are profoundly humanitarian.
“Misappropriated public funds mean fewer resources for healthcare, education, infrastructure, and job creation. “The broader question remains whether Nigeria’s political leadership has the will to end budget padding. Ugwummadụ added that institutional reforms must also include accountability mechanisms that track project implementation, from budgeting to execution. “We need tools that follow the money.
When there’s no hiding place, there’s no incentive to steal. “The allegations brought forward by BudgIT have struck a nerve at a critical time in Nigeria’s democratic journey. “With inflation surging, unemployment at historic highs, and public confidence in government at a low, the revelations demand immediate action.
“Whether through public petitions, judicial inquiry, legislative reform, or executive accountability, Nigerians, and their leaders face a moment of reckoning,” he said. As Ugwummadụ aptly stated, “Our Constitution mandates the state to abolish corruption.
Anything less is a betrayal of that constitutional promise. “If Nigeria must move forward, the time to act is now. Transparency is not just a virtue, it is a necessity for national survival.” Another rights crusader, Ige Asemudara, posited that “Budget padding is a serious fiscal crime and a blatant abuse of legislative power.
“It refers to the illegal insertion of fictitious or inflated projects into the national budget by lawmakers for the purpose of personal enrichment.. “This practice undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s budgeting process and entrenches corruption at the highest levels of government.
On the implication of budget padding in the fight against corruption, the radical lawyer maintained, “First, it erodes public trust in governance and the legislative arm of government, which is supposed to provide oversight and ensure accountability. “Second, it diverts scarce public resources from critical sectors like health, education, and infrastructure to fraudulent or non-existent projects.
“This not only sabotages development, but also empowers a network of corrupt contractors and officials who benefit from the rot. “Moreover, when the legislature becomes complicit in budget fraud, it weakens its moral and constitutional authority to check the executive. “It becomes a partner in corruption rather than a bulwark against it. This compromises the entire anti-corruption framework of the country, and emboldens impunity.”
To end this era of budget padding, Asemudara asserted, “We must strengthen institutions and introduce sweeping reforms. “The budgeting process must be made fully transparent and participatory. Civil society, the media, and independent auditors should have access to budget drafts and line items for scrutiny before final approval.
“The Fiscal Responsibility Commission and anti-corruption agencies like the EFCC and ICPC must be empowered and mandated to track budget implementation and prosecute offenders. “There should be serious legal consequences, including removal from office and imprisonment, for legislators and public officers found guilty of manipulating the budget.
“We also need political will. The executive must refuse to implement padded budgets and challenge them legally if necessary. “Nigerians must demand accountability from their representatives and reject candidates with a history of corrupt enrichment. “Only then can we break this vicious cycle of fiscal abuse and redirect our public resources toward real development”.
