What Nigeria’s budget reveals about why transparency reforms often fail in emerging democracies

BY ADEJOKE AKINBODE

Nigeria has come a long way since it began introducing major structural reforms to improve transparency in public finance.

Today, the federal government publishes annual budget proposals and approved budgets. At the same time, the Open Treasury Portal, Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS), Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS), and the Nigeria Open Contracting Portal (NOCOPO) have expanded public access to budget, expenditure, payroll, and procurement information. These reforms, complemented by the Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007), the Public Procurement Act (2007), and, later, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, have established legal frameworks to strengthen fiscal discipline, transparency, and competitive procurement.

However, a decade and a half later, Nigeria’s 2026 federal government budget shows a persistent challenge with emerging democracies. Transparency reforms have expanded public access to information, but they have not necessarily strengthened accountability or improved the quality of public spending.

Citizens can now access more budget information than ever before, yet questionable allocations, weak institutional coordination and poor spending decisions continue to find their way into the country’s appropriation process.

One of the most recent and clearest examples was the allocation of over N6.44 billion for a Special Presidential Support Group for activities related to the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifiers. Not only did Nigeria not qualify for the World Cup, but the qualifying campaign had already been concluded months before the budget was signed into law. Following public scrutiny, the National Sports Commission explained that the provision was a rollover of unfunded commitments from the previous budget and was subsequently subjected to a corrigendum process to redirect the funds to other sporting activities. Whether that explanation is satisfactory is almost beside the point. It certainly, however, exposed weaknesses in budget preparation and legislative oversight, while also raising broader questions about how obsolete or poorly justified expenditures remain in final appropriation documents.

Similarly, concerns emerged over allocations to institutions whose budgetary provisions appeared disconnected from their statutory mandates. One notorious example is the capital allocations to the National Commission for Almajiri and Out-of-School Children Education for projects extending beyond its core institutional responsibilities. BudgIT’s analysis found N8.4 billion allocated for the construction of roads.

There were also several budget items assigned to agencies with overlapping or poorly defined functions. Such examples reinforce longstanding concerns about duplication of responsibilities across ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), fragmented planning processes, and weak expenditure prioritisation. These issues not only reduce the efficiency of public spending but also make effective oversight considerably more difficult.

Another case of weak oversight in the 2026 approved federal budget was the allocation of approximately N1.30 billion to an agency named the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, under the presidency, which the presidency has since tagged a fake/non-existing agency.

Likewise, the national assembly inserted over 11,000 constituency projects valued at more than N6.9 trillion into the 2025 Appropriation Act, many of which bypass transparent planning processes and weaken strategic resource allocation. At the same time, persistent under-implementation of capital projects, delayed publication of audited public accounts, and the prolonged delay in strengthening Nigeria’s audit framework through comprehensive audit reforms continue to undermine effective accountability. These examples show that publishing budget information alone does not guarantee that public institutions can be held responsible for how resources are ultimately utilised.

Nigeria’s experience offers an important lesson for emerging democracies. Across many developing countries, governments have adopted open budget initiatives, digital fiscal platforms, and procurement reforms; however, these advances have often outpaced improvements in institutional accountability. Weak oversight institutions, political interference, limited enforcement of audit findings, corruption, and inadequate legislative and citizen oversight continue to hinder the translation of transparency into improved governance and public service delivery.

Consequently, despite greater access to fiscal information, citizens frequently experience poor infrastructure, inadequate healthcare and education services, and declining trust in government. For transparency reforms to achieve their intended impact, they must be accompanied by stronger accountability institutions, independent audit systems, effective legislative oversight, meaningful civic participation, and credible sanctions for the misuse of public resources. Only then can transparency evolve from an information-sharing exercise into a mechanism that improves public spending outcomes and strengthens democratic governance.

Essentially, Nigeria’s budget reforms require coordinated action by the executive, ministries, the legislature, and non-state actors to strengthen fiscal discipline, improve expenditure efficiency, and enhance accountability. The executive should adopt credible and conservative macroeconomic assumptions, enforce strict compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, eliminate extra-budgetary spending, publish timely budget implementation reports, and ensure sanctions for fiscal violations. Given limited fiscal space, capital expenditure should be strategically prioritised through a “Big Push” approach that concentrates resources on high-impact sectors such as infrastructure, healthcare, education, agriculture, and the digital economy, while completing ongoing projects before initiating new ones. Stronger procurement systems, realistic project costing, and resistance to politically motivated project insertions are essential to maximise value for money.

MDAs should strengthen technical capacity in planning, project management, monitoring and evaluation, and data analytics while adopting results-based budgeting, digital budget management systems, and performance accountability frameworks to improve implementation and service delivery. The national assembly should strengthen its oversight function by promoting fiscal discipline, reducing non-strategic constituency project insertions, ensuring budget amendments are evidence-based and aligned with national priorities, and enforcing compliance with procurement regulations, implementation timelines, and audit recommendations.

The media, civil society organisations, and citizens also have important roles in improving budget governance. The media should expand data-driven and investigative journalism to monitor budget releases, procurement, project implementation, and expenditure outcomes, exposing inefficiencies and corruption where they occur. Civic technology platforms should be leveraged to simplify budget information and enable citizens to monitor public spending. Furthermore, citizens and civil society should actively participate in budget consultations, legislative hearings, and advocacy processes to ensure government spending reflects public priorities and supports inclusive development.

Collectively, these reforms would enhance transparency, strengthen public trust, improve the efficiency of public expenditure, and ensure that Nigeria’s budgets translate into measurable socio-economic outcomes.

Adejoke Akinbode is the head of research and policy advisory (and former head of extractives) at BudgIT

Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheCable.