“What makes this even more troubling is that this comes from the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives—one of the principal custodians of Nigeria’s legislative integrity. If those entrusted with safeguarding the sanctity of the budget are comfortable stretching agency mandates beyond recognition, what moral authority remains to question similar abuses elsewhere?”
By Solomon Dalung Esq (ED)
When reports first surfaced earlier this week that the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives had inserted a ₦1 billion budget provision for the procurement of musical instruments for churches in his constituency, many of us dismissed it as another social media fabrication. It was simply too ridiculous to believe.
Then came the official response.
The Deputy Speaker’s office did not deny the allocation. Rather, it argued that the figure was actually about ₦780 million after statutory deductions and that the programme was intended for youth reorientation through churches. It also admitted that the budget description was a “technical error” and promised a corrigendum.
But that explanation exposes an even deeper problem.
According to the budget, the project was domiciled under the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP), an agency under the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment whose statutory responsibility is to arbitrate and resolve trade disputes between employers and workers.
Read that again.
An agency created to settle labour disputes is now expected to procure musical instruments, public address systems and evangelical equipment for churches in a federal constituency.
What exactly does industrial arbitration have to do with church equipment?
What does labour dispute resolution have to do with youth evangelism?
If tomorrow the National Library is asked to build markets, or the Nigerian Meteorological Agency is directed to construct palaces, will we simply be told it is all for “community development”?
This is the kind of legislative recklessness that weakens public confidence in the appropriation process.
A budget is not a document where powerful politicians should hide constituency projects inside agencies whose legal mandates have absolutely nothing to do with those projects. It is a legal instrument. Every allocation must have a clear public purpose, be assigned to the appropriate implementing agency, and withstand the test of transparency and accountability.
What makes this even more troubling is that this comes from the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives—one of the principal custodians of Nigeria’s legislative integrity. If those entrusted with safeguarding the sanctity of the budget are comfortable stretching agency mandates beyond recognition, what moral authority remains to question similar abuses elsewhere?
The issue is no longer whether the money is ₦1 billion or ₦780 million. The issue is whether Nigeria’s budget has become a playground where almost any project can be squeezed into almost any agency, provided a powerful sponsor is behind it.
Nigerians deserve better.
We deserve a budget that reflects the law, respects institutional mandates, and prioritises national development over legislative convenience. Until that happens, every “technical error” will continue to look less like a mistake and more like a symptom of a broken budgeting culture.
Solomon Dalung Esq
