Yayi and N1.3bn budget for non-existent agency: the unanswered questions

…How did the allocation pass every stage of Nigeria’s 2026 budget process?

By Bosun Davies Shoyoye

How does more than ₦1.3 billion find its way into Nigeria’s national budget for an entity publicly described as a “nonexistent” federal agency? That question has become one of the defining issues arising from Nigeria’s 2026 Appropriation Act. More importantly, it raises broader questions about the effectiveness of the scrutiny applied at every stage of the country’s budget process, from the Budget Office to the National Assembly and ultimately to presidential assent.

A federal budget does not become law overnight. It begins with proposals from Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), which are consolidated by the Budget Office of the Federation before being presented by the President to the National Assembly. The budget is then examined by the relevant committees in both chambers, debated, amended where necessary, passed by the legislature, and finally signed into law by the President. Every stage exists to verify allocations, eliminate errors, ensure legal compliance, and safeguard public resources.

Against that backdrop, one question stands out: How did an entity that has been publicly described as lacking a clear legal foundation reportedly receive more than ₦1.3 billion after successfully passing through every stage of Nigeria’s appropriation process? Was it an administrative oversight, a procedural lapse, a documentation error, or evidence of deeper weaknesses in the system?

As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations during the consideration and passage of the 2026 budget, Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, FCA popularly known as Yayi, occupied one of the legislature’s most significant oversight positions. While the committee does not originate every budget proposal, it plays a central role in reviewing, harmonising, scrutinising, and recommending allocations before the Appropriation Bill is passed.

The emergence of questions surrounding the disputed allocation has therefore drawn attention to the committee’s oversight responsibilities. If one allocation has become the subject of national controversy, what assurances exist that similar issues do not exist elsewhere in the budget? Were existing verification mechanisms sufficiently rigorous to identify questionable allocations before the budget became law?

The controversy extends beyond a single allocation.

A review of the 2026 Federal Government Appropriation Bill (Details) reveals another budget entry that has generated important policy questions. Page 2287 of 2790, under Budget Office of the Federation, Code 0517033001 for the National Commission for Almajiri and Out of School Children Education Headquarters, contains Project Code ERGP12235571, which appropriates ₦1.4 billion for the rehabilitation and construction of Obasanjo Itele Road, Nazareth Road, Oke Ola, Imeko, Idogo Township Road and the construction of Odedeyo.

The same page and subsequent entries also contain numerous allocations under the commission for road construction, township roads, solar street lights, vehicles, health related facilities, and other infrastructure projects across several states, alongside programmes directly related to Almajiri and out of school children.

These entries raise legitimate policy questions. Why would a commission established primarily to address the educational challenges of Almajiri and out of school children be implementing multiple road and infrastructure projects across different states? Does the commission’s enabling law expressly permit such cross-sector implementation? Was it selected because it had available capital funds, or is there another lawful policy basis for assigning these projects to the commission?

If there is a legitimate explanation, making it public would help address growing concerns and improve public understanding of the budget.

The questions, however, go even deeper.

If a publicly disputed agency could reportedly receive more than ₦1.3 billion after passing through every stage of Nigeria’s budget process, what assurance do Nigerians have that there are no other agencies, entities, or allocations warranting similar scrutiny? Could there be other questionable budget entries that have simply escaped public attention?

Equally important is the question of project alignment. How many more projects have been assigned to agencies whose statutory mandates appear unrelated to their implementation? If this practice extends beyond isolated cases, could it be diverting scarce public resources from the agencies best positioned to deliver them? More importantly, how many underserved communities may have been denied desperately needed investments because funds were allocated through agencies whose primary responsibilities lie elsewhere?

Nigeria continues to have one of the world’s largest populations of out of school children. Every naira appropriated carries an opportunity cost. If agencies established to address critical national challenges increasingly finance projects outside their apparent core mandates, what effect does that have on the delivery of their principal responsibilities? Are sector specific objectives gradually being diluted by unrelated capital projects?

These are not merely accounting questions. They are questions of governance, transparency, accountability, and national development. Every questionable allocation deserves an explanation. Every project assigned to an agency outside its apparent mandate invites scrutiny. Every unexplained budget entry raises legitimate concerns about whether another community, another school, another healthcare facility, or another rural road may have lost resources that could have addressed more urgent priorities.

These are ultimately institutional questions rather than personal ones. Citizens are entitled not only to know how much public money is being spent, but also why particular agencies are responsible for particular projects and whether those decisions are consistent with the mandates established by law.

The answers matter because public confidence in the national budget depends not only on legal compliance but also on public trust. Budgets are more than financial documents. They are statements of national priorities and instruments of public accountability. Every allocation should be capable of withstanding legal scrutiny, policy justification, and public transparency.

When official budget documents themselves contain entries that raise legitimate questions about agency mandates and budget oversight, transparent explanations become essential. Public confidence is strengthened not by avoiding scrutiny, but by providing timely, verifiable, and evidence-based answers.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCE

Document: 2026 Federal Government Appropriation Bill (Details)

Source: Budget Office of the Federation

Page: 2287 of 2790

Agency Code: 0517033001

Agency: National Commission for Almajiri and Out of School Children Education Headquarters

Project Code: ERGP12235571

Amount: ₦1,400,000,000

Project Description: Rehabilitation and Construction of Obasanjo Itele Road, Nazareth Road, Oke Ola, Imeko, Idogo Township Road and Construction of Odedeyo.

As of publication, the issues discussed remain matters of public debate. This article relies on publicly available budget documents and publicly reported concerns. Clarification from the Budget Office of the Federation, the relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies, the National Assembly, and other oversight institutions would help answer these questions and further strengthen public confidence in Nigeria’s appropriation process.