A recent statement by Senator Solomon Adeola, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Senator representing Ogun West Senatorial District, published under the title “The Role of Legislature in Shaping a Holistic Budget for Nigeria,” has reignited public debate over the controversial practice of legislative budget insertions—commonly referred to as “budget padding.”
In his article, the Senator defends the legislature’s role in adjusting the federal budget, dismissing terms like “padding,” “insertions,” and “constituency projects” as misrepresentations of legitimate legislative contributions to the budgetary process.
At Echotitbits.com, we fully acknowledge the constitutional role of the National Assembly in reviewing and approving the national budget. However, we must respectfully challenge the narrative that legislative insertions are harmless or beneficial acts of “democracy in action.” On the contrary, such adjustments—when carried out outside the framework of national planning—continue to undermine Nigeria’s development agenda, weaken fiscal discipline, and compromise the integrity of public finance.
The Purpose of the Envelope
Nigeria operates a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), an internationally recognized tool designed to align national spending with realistic revenue projections, development priorities, and sustainable debt levels.
Within this framework, each sector—education, health, roads, power—is assigned a budget “envelope” based on available funds and national strategic plans. These envelopes are not arbitrary figures. They are carefully calculated to ensure that the nation’s most pressing needs are funded first and that public spending remains sustainable.
When the legislature inserts hundreds of small, fragmented projects into the budget without reference to the MTEF, these envelopes are breached. Ministries are then forced to spread their limited resources across too many projects—many of which are duplicative, unviable, or politically motivated.
This is not merely a budgeting problem. It is a national development crisis.
A Real-World Example
Consider a real scenario:
• Let’s assume under the MTEF, ₦2 trillion is allocated to the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing.
• National Planning identifies critical projects, including:
• The Lagos–Ibadan Expressway
• The Abuja–Kaduna–Zaria–Kano Road
• However, during the budget process, the National Assembly inserts hundreds of new road projects, each valued between ₦50 million and ₦200 million, scattered across various constituencies nationwide.
The result?
• Funding for the major highways—projects vital for national connectivity and economic growth—is slashed.
• Many of the smaller inserted roads are abandoned or remain incomplete due to inadequate funding and planning.
• The national transport strategy suffers, and Nigeria’s development goals are delayed.
This is a clear example of how legislative insertions can derail national priorities, waste resources, and leave citizens stranded with half-completed projects.
Insertions vs. National Priorities
Legislative insertions are often justified under the banner of promoting equity or delivering development to neglected areas. While this may sound noble in theory, it frequently leads to waste and inefficiency in practice. Projects inserted late into the budget process are rarely subjected to rigorous planning. They often lack feasibility studies, are poorly costed, and fail to align with sectoral strategies.
We have witnessed the consequences firsthand: unfinished health centres, abandoned rural roads, ghost ICT hubs, and duplicated training workshops. Meanwhile, large-scale national infrastructure—projects with the potential to drive economic growth, create jobs, and reduce poverty—remains underfunded or delayed.
This is not equity. It is inefficiency.
Who Really Benefits?
The Senator is correct in stating that lawmakers do not execute projects directly; instead, implementation falls to Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs). However, this misses the critical issue. The core concern is how these projects enter the budget in the first place—and whose interests they ultimately serve.
Many inserted projects are awarded to politically connected contractors with little or no accountability to the communities they are meant to benefit. The result is an erosion of public trust in both the budget process and governance as a whole.
Strengthening the Budget Process
A credible budget process demands transparency, fiscal discipline, and a clear connection to national priorities. To achieve this:
1. All budget insertions must be made public, including details of their origin and justification.
2. Constituency needs should be integrated into national planning frameworks through structured dialogue—not through last-minute lobbying.
3. Sectoral envelopes must be respected, not breached.
4. The National Assembly should focus on strong oversight, ensuring that public funds deliver value for money rather than becoming vehicles for political patronage.
This is how democracy should function—not through distortions of the budget, but through accountability and measurable results.
Conclusion
The term “budget padding” is not a media invention. It reflects a budgeting culture that too often prioritizes political interests over Nigeria’s broader development goals. Rebranding insertions as “legislative adjustments” does not erase the very real consequences they have had on project execution, fiscal stability, and the welfare of ordinary Nigerians.
At Echotitbits.com, we believe that budget integrity is the cornerstone of responsible governance. If democracy is truly about the people, then our budget must reflect their genuine needs—not merely the influence of political actors.
Echotitbits.com Editorial Board
July 7, 2025
