Budget fraud practices have been identified by a member of the House of Representatives, who raised concerns about recurring waste and inflated provisions in Nigeria’s public budgeting system.
The observations were made during an interview addressing governance, fiscal discipline, and legislative oversight.
Rep. Clement Jimbo, representing Abaq/Etim Ekpo/Ika Federal Constituency of Akwa Ibom State, stated that one of the most common budget fraud practices involves the repeated inclusion of items that should not require annual replacement.
He cited frequent budgetary allocations for computers, vehicles, and office furniture as examples of unnecessary duplication.
According to him, such practices contribute to inefficiency and distort the purpose of capital expenditure.
He explained that while recurrent spending such as salaries often achieves high implementation rates of about 90 to 95 percent, capital projects lag significantly, with some Ministries, Departments, and Agencies recording implementation levels as low as 0 to 2 percent.
The lawmaker linked these gaps to unrealistic and poorly structured budgets. He noted that figures are often inserted without proper technical input, leading to inflated costs and projects that are either abandoned or poorly executed.
He emphasised that budgeting should be driven by professionals such as quantity surveyors to ensure accuracy and accountability.
Jimbo further explained that the persistence of budget fraud practices increases pressure on public finances and contributes to inflation.
He stated that unnecessary spending crowds out critical investments and reduces the effectiveness of government intervention in key sectors.
In addressing legislative responsibility, he acknowledged that the National Assembly shares part of the challenge, particularly in the area of oversight.
However, he pointed out that late submission of budgets by the executive arm often limits the time available for thorough scrutiny, reducing the ability of lawmakers to identify and eliminate irregularities.
He provided an example from his oversight experience, where a government agency proposed the purchase of 10 vehicles at what he described as unrealistic costs. Following intervention, the item was removed from the budget when it was resubmitted.
The discussion on budget fraud practices also extended to systemic issues within Nigeria’s fiscal framework.
Jimbo highlighted the lack of professional involvement in budget preparation, noting that technical experts are often excluded from the initial stages, only to be consulted later to adjust already inflated figures.
Beyond budgeting, the lawmaker referenced past subsidy-related abuses as part of broader governance challenges. He stated,
“The fraud in subsidy payments was real. People brought in empty vessels, claimed subsidy, and enriched themselves,” underscoring the need for stronger controls across public finance systems.
The identification of budget fraud practices highlights ongoing concerns about transparency and efficiency in Nigeria’s public financial management.
Weak budget structures and inflated allocations may limit the government’s ability to deliver infrastructure and social services effectively.
Strengthening oversight mechanisms, improving professional input, and enforcing accountability measures are expected to play a key role in addressing these challenges.
Effective budgeting remains central to economic stability and public sector performance.
