Concerns Grow Over North-West Development Commission's Spending

Last week, short video clips from the Senate meeting with officials of the North-West Development Commission spread widely on social media. The clips caught attention not just because senators were asking tough questions, but also because of the figures involved. Out of the ₦1.19 billion reportedly spent by the commission, around ₦943 million, which is about 79 percent, was said to have gone to allowances for members of its governing board.

For an agency set up to tackle some of Nigeria’s biggest development issues, this is a strange way to introduce itself. It is necessary to clarify some points. A legislative inquiry is not the same as proving someone is guilty, and the public information available does not show that the ₦943 million was stolen. The board chairman defended the spending by saying the board held seven meetings, made 63 resolutions, and incurred legitimate costs for committees and meetings while developing the commission's work plan. That explanation should be heard, but it does not settle the matter. In public finance, spending can be approved and still be too high, poorly prioritized, or not aligned with the agency’s goals.

So, the main question is not whether board members should get allowances. It is whether a new development commission should spend almost four out of every five naira it has on board allowances while lacking executive directors, not having a full workforce, and struggling to secure basic office space.

During the Senate hearing, the ministry in charge acknowledged that not having executive directors has weakened the commission’s management since it started in February 2025. Lawmakers also raised questions about travel claims related to a visit to the Kano State governor, even though the commission is based in Kano. The claims included air tickets, transportation, and other costs. The numbers tell a worrying story. A commission can spend money but still fail to build an effective organization. It can hold meetings, make resolutions, visit officials, and create documents without making any real change in the lives of the people it was set up to help. Administrative activity should not be mistaken for real development.

Years ago, I heard about an agency where the chief executive was basically the whole organization. He was in charge of administration, finances, procurement, programs, and final decisions. Other staff were treated as extra because the boss thought he could do it all. From afar, this looked efficient. But in truth, it was an empty organization. Nothing could happen without that one person, oversight was weak, roles were unclear, and the agency could not grow beyond the wishes of its leader.

The commission needs to provide a clear account of the ₦943 million: the dates, who got paid, how much, the reasons, approvals, and payment statuses. If this amount includes back pay, committee work, travel, or other necessary costs, the public deserves to see the details. Being open would protect both the commission and the public. Keeping quiet will only lead to the belief that the board has become the commission’s biggest beneficiary.

The North-West Development Commission risks becoming a more costly version of that problem. Without a full executive team, a management team with enough staff, and an agency spending heavily on internal governance before setting up the structures needed to work outside, this is a serious issue. This is crucial because the NWDC is not just any federal agency. Its job covers Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Zamfara. It is supposed to handle infrastructure rebuilding, poverty reduction, social rehabilitation, stability, and economic recovery. These are not just ideas. They directly affect communities dealing with banditry, displacement, poor rural livelihoods, weak schools, inadequate health services, bad roads, and limited job opportunities.

The development challenge is clear. The National Bureau of Statistics reported that 65 percent of Nigeria’s multidimensionally poor, which is about 86 million people at the time of the survey, live in the North. It also found that the rate of multidimensional poverty ranged from 27 percent in Ondo to 91 percent in Sokoto. This means the commission is working in a region where public money is especially precious. Every naira wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy is a naira that could have gone to schools, health centers, irrigation projects, rural roads, water supply, skill programs, or rebuilding communities harmed by violence. This is why the argument that their spending is allowed by law is not enough. The act that set it up may allow meetings and allowances, but no law says an agency should forget about balance. Just because something is legal does not mean it is responsible.

Nigeria has a history with development commissions. The Niger Delta Development Board was set up in 1961, following recommendations from the Willink Commission. This was followed by the Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission and then the Niger Delta Development Commission. The North-East Development Commission was later created due to the devastation from insurgency. Recently, other commissions have been created for different regions, adding to a large group of regional intervention agencies under the Federal Ministry of Regional Development.

The reason is clear. Nigeria has sharp regional inequalities, and some problems cross state lines. Banditry, population displacement, conflicts between herders and farmers, ecological issues, transport networks, agricultural value chains, and water systems cannot always be fixed through state projects alone. A well-designed regional body can coordinate investments, share expertise, and pursue projects that benefit several states. But there is also a risk that development commissions become extra layers of political jobs, high costs, and overlapping contracts. Nigeria does not lack public agencies. It suffers from agencies that often spend more time taking care of themselves than solving the problems they were meant to address.

Creating a commission is not the same as creating development. Sometimes, it just gives another place for public money to go. The NWDC needs to be different because the North-West cannot afford another agency that starts with fanfare and ends with red tape. Its first duty is to build trust. This means the ministry in charge must finish hiring executive directors and let the commission recruit qualified staff through a transparent process. There must be a clear line between the board’s role in overseeing and the management's job in carrying out tasks. The reported issues with office space, not acting on board decisions, communication problems, and who is in charge of payments show that the agency is already facing serious internal problems before it has even started working effectively. These disagreements might explain some delays, but they cannot justify ongoing poor performance.

The North-West Development Commission was set up because the region is in a development crisis. Its early actions must show the urgency of that mission. The commission still has a chance to change its direction, build a trustworthy agency, and show that regional efforts can do more than create boards, meetings, courtesy visits, and allowances. But it must realize that when a development commission spends 79 percent of its initial funding on those running it, the public has the right to question whether the commission is really developing the North-West or just developing itself.