Experts from a leading policy research organisation, Agora Policy, have raised serious concerns about the design and implementation of constituency projects in Nigeria, saying there is little to no evidence that such projects are based on actual needs assessments.
In a paper written by Samuel Ajayi, Ayobami Ayorinde and Oluchi Nkeonye, and posted on the organisation’s website, Agora Policy described the current constituency project model as flawed and prone to abuse, corruption, and misallocation of scarce federal resources.
“There is no evidence that the projects are based on need assessments and on proper costing (the allocations are, not surprisingly, usually round figures).
“There is hardly an assessment of the operations and the impact of the projects when completed. The main motivations seem to be patronage and electoral leverage for the legislators. Most of the constituency projects also come at the tail-end of the budget process, and are unilaterally initiated by legislators. There are also documented instances where the legislators implement the projects through proxies or relatives, and cases where these projects are not implemented at all, even after release of funds or where the quality of work does not match the amount allocated,” the authors stated.
The think tank noted further that constituency projects are at “the risk of duplication and waste” if legislators continue to use “federal resources to fund some of these basic items, which should fall within the scope of local government areas or at best states.”
The group further stated that the anomalies around constituency projects are getting progressively worse, as “legislators become more emboldened and increasingly see these projects as their entitlements”.
The authors stated that “In a time of heightened economic pressures, the federal government needs to spend in a smarter, more strategic and more effective way. There is thus an urgent need to rethink and refine the approach to constituency projects as part of the larger measures designed to ensure prudence in federal spending and restore integrity to the budgeting process.”
The experts further noted that the constituency projects are not rooted in legality.
The authors wrote, “The legality of legislative constituency projects has long been a matter of debate, particularly concerning whether legislators can unilaterally initiate and approve such projects. The roles of the executive and legislature in the budgeting process are specified in the constitution.
“The executive is responsible for preparing and implementing the budget, while the legislature is empowered to scrutinise and approve budgets and monitor implementation. The executive cannot approve budgets, and the legislature cannot initiate budgets.”
The authors noted further, “The first flaw is procedural. Over time, legislators have made a habit of including in approved budgets some items not in the appropriation bills submitted by the executive. While it is the remit of the legislature to approve budgets, it is beyond the scope of their powers to initiate budgets.
“When legislators create and include projects in budgets, as they have been doing over the years, they are not only encroaching on executive territory, they are combining the power to initiate budgets with the power to approve budgets. This is alien to the presidential system that we practice. It is against the principles of separation of powers and undermines the checks and balances that underpin the presidential system. The powers to initiate and approve budgets are separated for good reasons, and fusing the two powers opens the door for abuse.”
Over the years, constituency projects have faced criticisms for being plagued by corruption, poor execution, and a lack of transparency, with many abandoned, poorly completed, or never getting off the ground despite substantial funding.
According to Agora Policy, this reform would replace the current fragmented system and ensure that projects are planned and executed within a more structured, transparent, and accountable process.