The budget that betrayed Nigerians

THERE is a Yoruba proverb that says, “When a child washes his hands clean, he eats with elders.” The reverse is equally true. When elders soil their hands, they should not expect the respect reserved for those who lead with honour. The revelations surrounding the 2026 federal budget have exposed one of the most disturbing examples of fiscal irresponsibility in recent years. According to Tracka’s analysis, the Federal Government has earmarked ₦22.15 billion for the construction, renovation and furnishing of 106 traditional rulers’ palaces across the country. More troubling is the fact that palace projects worth ₦5.85 billion have no identifiable locations, making public oversight almost impossible. Even more astonishing, none of the 45 implementing Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) has the statutory responsibility of constructing palaces.

Among the agencies expected to execute these projects are the Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute, the Federal Cooperative College, Ibadan, the Sheda Science and Technology Complex, the National Cereals Research Institute, the Industrial Arbitration Panel, the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency, and even the Federal Neuro Psychiatric Hospital, Dawanau. We are compelled to ask a simple question: What business does a psychiatric hospital have building palaces? Since when did an oil spill agency become a contractor for royal residences? At what point did research institutes abandon research for palace construction? The absurdity would be amusing if it were not so tragic. This is not budgeting. It is a dangerous distortion of public finance.

Across the South-West and indeed many parts of Nigeria, palaces have traditionally been community projects. Indigenes at home and abroad contribute voluntarily to build and maintain the palaces of their traditional rulers. The fundraising for the Owa of Idanre’s palace in Ondo State is a good example of how communities take ownership of such responsibilities. Traditional institutions belong constitutionally under state governments. If government intervention is considered necessary, the logical responsibility rests with the states, not the Federal Government. Yet, somehow, palace construction has found its way into the federal budget as constituency projects. This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question. Are these truly projects for the benefit of constituents, or have constituency projects become convenient vehicles for distributing public funds with little transparency and accountability? The greatest tragedy is that these allocations did not appear overnight: they passed through every checkpoint in Nigeria’s budget process without meaningful resistance. The ministries and agencies accepted projects that fall completely outside their statutory mandates. The Budget Office, whose responsibility includes ensuring coherence and alignment between projects and agency mandates, apparently failed to raise sufficient red flags.

READ ALSO: Atiku queries N22.15bn budget for construction, renovation of 106 palaces

The Senate and House Committees on Appropriation, whose primary duty is to scrutinise every allocation before recommending passage, allowed these anomalies to survive. The various sectoral committees equally have questions to answer. How does an agency responsible for scientific research, labour relations or oil spill management suddenly become responsible for palace construction without anyone objecting? The leadership of both chambers cannot escape scrutiny either. The Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives presided over the legislative process that produced this appropriation. Leadership carries responsibility. Nigerians deserve to know whether these glaring inconsistencies were overlooked, ignored or simply tolerated.

Nor should the Presidency be insulated from criticism. The President signs the Appropriation Bill into law based on recommendations from the Budget Office, his economic advisers and relevant officials. Whether these specific line items escaped attention or were considered acceptable is a question that deserves an honest answer. While it may be unrealistic to expect the President to personally examine thousands of budget lines, the institutions established to protect the integrity of the budget exist precisely for that purpose. If they failed, then the Presidency must demand accountability from those entrusted with that responsibility.

Some have argued that these are merely constituency projects. That explanation is unconvincing. A constituency project should address identifiable public needs such as roads, schools, hospitals, water supply, healthcare facilities, agricultural support or rural electrification. It should not become a convenient label for projects that have little relationship with the constitutional responsibilities of the implementing agencies. This scandal exposes a deeper problem. Nigeria’s constituency project framework has become increasingly vulnerable to abuse. Without strict rules on project selection, implementing agencies and public disclosure, it risks becoming a pipeline through which public funds are diverted under the cover of development.

The palace allocations are only the latest manifestation of a recurring pattern. Nigerians still remember when deep freezers and other questionable items found their way into constituency projects. Rather than learning from those embarrassing episodes, the system appears to have become even more audacious. Public funds are sacred. Every naira appropriated belongs to the Nigerian people. In a country struggling with inflation, unemployment, insecurity, inadequate healthcare, failing schools and poor infrastructure, every budget line should reflect national priorities and withstand public scrutiny. This is why the 2026 palace budget should not be dismissed as just another controversy. It is a test of Nigeria’s commitment to transparency, accountability and responsible governance. Those responsible for scrutinising the budget cannot simply plead oversight. Oversight is precisely what they were entrusted to provide. The appropriation committees of both chambers must explain how these allocations survived their review. The Budget Office must explain why agencies were assigned projects completely outside their mandates. The leadership of the National Assembly must explain how such glaring anomalies passed through the legislative process. The Presidency must explain whether the safeguards designed to protect the integrity of the budget are functioning as intended.

Most importantly, Nigerians should insist that every questionable line item be independently investigated. Where projects lack legal basis, they should be removed. Where officials knowingly inserted or approved inappropriate projects, they should be identified and held accountable. A budget is more than a financial document; it is a statement of a government’s priorities. When palaces compete with hospitals, when research institutes become palace builders, and when billions of naira disappear into projects with no identifiable locations, the budget ceases to be an instrument of development. It becomes an instrument of public distrust. Nigeria deserves better. The time has come to restore integrity to the budget process and to remind every public official that stewardship of public funds is not a privilege to be exploited, but a sacred trust to be faithfully discharged.