.webp)
Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo recently stirred controversy by describing constituency projects as “daylight robbery” during a public address in Abeokuta, Ogun State. His scathing remarks targeted lawmakers, accusing them of manipulating these projects for personal enrichment at the expense of public welfare. Obasanjo’s comments have reignited a national conversation about transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of Nigeria’s governance system. This article explores the intricacies of constituency projects, delves into Obasanjo’s critique, and examines the broader implications for Nigeria’s political landscape and public trust.
The Concept of Constituency Projects in Nigeria
Constituency projects, also known as zonal intervention projects, are government-funded initiatives allocated through the federal budget to address local needs in the constituencies represented by members of the National Assembly. These projects aim to deliver infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other essential services to communities across Nigeria’s 360 House of Representatives constituencies and 109 senatorial districts. By allowing lawmakers to nominate projects, the system seeks to ensure that federal resources reach underserved areas, fostering equitable development.
The rationale behind constituency projects is rooted in Nigeria’s diverse and complex socio-political landscape. With a population exceeding 200 million and significant regional disparities, centralized planning often fails to address local priorities. Constituency projects were introduced to bridge this gap, empowering lawmakers to advocate for their constituents’ needs. Examples of such projects include the construction of boreholes, schools, health centers, roads, and community halls, all intended to improve living standards at the grassroots level.
However, the execution of these projects has long been a source of controversy. Critics argue that the system is plagued by corruption, inefficiency, and lack of transparency, with lawmakers often prioritizing personal or political interests over public welfare. Obasanjo’s recent remarks amplify these concerns, highlighting systemic flaws that have persisted for decades and calling for urgent reforms to restore public trust.
Obasanjo’s Bold Accusation
Speaking at an event in Abeokuta, Obasanjo did not hold back in his criticism of constituency projects. He described them as “daylight robbery,” alleging that lawmakers collude with contractors to siphon public funds under the guise of community development. According to Obasanjo, the process lacks accountability, with lawmakers wielding excessive influence over project selection and implementation. He argued that this practice undermines the principles of good governance and deprives Nigerians of the benefits of democratic representation.
As a former president who served from 1999 to 2007, Obasanjo’s perspective carries significant weight. His tenure coincided with the institutionalization of constituency projects, and his administration faced similar criticisms regarding their implementation. By speaking out now, Obasanjo is not only critiquing current lawmakers but also reflecting on a system that has resisted reform across multiple administrations. His use of the term “daylight robbery” underscores the audacity of the alleged mismanagement, suggesting that corruption occurs openly and without fear of repercussions.
Obasanjo’s remarks resonate with a broader sentiment among Nigerians, many of whom view constituency projects as a symbol of political dysfunction. The lack of tangible outcomes in many communities, despite significant budgetary allocations, has fueled public frustration and skepticism about the integrity of elected officials. His critique serves as a call to action, urging stakeholders to address the systemic issues undermining the constituency project framework.
How Constituency Projects Work
To fully grasp Obasanjo’s concerns, it is essential to understand the mechanics of constituency projects. Each year, the federal government allocates a portion of the national budget—typically around ₦100 billion—for these initiatives. This amount is divided among the 469 members of the National Assembly, with each lawmaker receiving approximately ₦200 million to nominate projects for their constituency. The projects are then implemented by ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs), which are responsible for awarding contracts and overseeing execution.
Lawmakers play a central role in the process, identifying projects based on their constituents’ needs and submitting proposals to the relevant MDAs. These projects are meant to address local challenges, such as poor infrastructure, limited access to healthcare, or inadequate educational facilities. However, the process is often criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability. Lawmakers frequently influence the selection of contractors, leading to allegations of favoritism, kickbacks, and inflated costs.
Once funds are disbursed, oversight is minimal. Unlike other budgetary allocations, which are subject to scrutiny by agencies like the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), constituency projects operate in a relatively opaque environment. Lawmakers are not required to provide detailed reports on project progress, and public access to information about fund utilization is limited. This lack of transparency creates opportunities for mismanagement, as funds can be diverted or projects left incomplete without consequence.
The quality of constituency projects varies widely. In some cases, communities benefit from well-executed initiatives, such as functional schools or reliable water systems. In others, projects are abandoned halfway, with contractors disappearing after receiving payments. A 2020 investigation by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) revealed that over ₦2 trillion allocated for constituency projects between 2000 and 2019 could not be accounted for, with many projects either nonexistent or incomplete. Such findings lend credence to Obasanjo’s assertion that the system is ripe for abuse.
Historical Context: The Rise of Constituency Projects
Constituency projects emerged in the early years of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, following the return to civilian rule in 1999. During this period, lawmakers sought to ensure that their constituencies benefited directly from federal resources, as centralized governance often neglected rural and marginalized areas. The introduction of constituency projects was seen as a way to democratize development, allowing legislators to address local challenges and promote equitable resource distribution.
However, the system quickly became politicized. Lawmakers began using constituency projects as tools for patronage, awarding contracts to loyal supporters or directing projects to areas that aligned with their political interests. This practice undermined the original intent of the projects, turning them into vehicles for personal enrichment and political consolidation. By the early 2000s, constituency projects had become a staple of Nigeria’s budgetary process, but their implementation was marred by allegations of corruption and inefficiency.
Obasanjo’s presidency was a critical period in the evolution of constituency projects. His administration, which prioritized economic reforms and anti-corruption efforts, saw the formalization of the system as a means of securing legislative support for executive policies. However, critics argue that this period also entrenched the flaws that Obasanjo now decries, as lawmakers gained increasing control over project selection and funding. While institutions like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the ICPC were established to combat corruption, constituency projects remained a weak link in the fight against graft.
The Broader Implications of Obasanjo’s Critique
Obasanjo’s description of constituency projects as “daylight robbery” has significant implications for Nigeria’s political and social landscape. At its core, his critique challenges the legitimacy of a system that allows elected officials to prioritize personal gain over public welfare. By calling out lawmakers, Obasanjo is highlighting a disconnect between Nigeria’s democratic ideals and the reality of governance, where systemic flaws undermine the delivery of public goods.
One of the most pressing consequences of this controversy is its impact on public trust. Nigerians already have low confidence in their political institutions, with many viewing politicians as self-serving and disconnected from the needs of ordinary citizens. The mismanagement of constituency projects reinforces this perception, as communities see little tangible benefit from the funds allocated in their name. A 2021 survey by BudgIT, a civic organization focused on budget transparency, found that over 60% of Nigerians were unaware of any constituency projects in their areas, despite billions of naira being allocated annually.
The controversy also underscores the need for systemic reform. To restore public confidence and ensure that constituency projects fulfill their intended purpose, several measures are necessary:
Strengthened Oversight: Enhancing oversight mechanisms, such as requiring public reporting on project progress and expenditure, would increase transparency and accountability. Agencies like the ICPC and EFCC could play a more active role in monitoring fund disbursement and project execution.
Community Engagement: Involving local communities in the selection and monitoring of projects could ensure that initiatives align with genuine needs. Community-based organizations and civil society groups could serve as watchdogs, holding lawmakers and contractors accountable.
Standardized Processes: Establishing clear criteria for project selection and implementation would reduce the discretion lawmakers have in choosing contractors and projects. This could include mandatory competitive bidding processes and standardized cost estimates.
Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating citizens about constituency projects and their rights to demand accountability would empower communities to hold their representatives accountable. Public access to budget details and project reports could facilitate this process.
Lawmakers’ Defense and the Counterargument
In response to Obasanjo’s remarks, some lawmakers have defended the constituency project system, arguing that it is a vital tool for addressing local needs. They contend that without these projects, many communities would be overlooked by federal development plans, which often prioritize urban centers and high-profile initiatives. Lawmakers also argue that their involvement ensures that projects reflect the priorities of their constituents, who they claim are best positioned to understand local challenges.
However, these defenses are often overshadowed by evidence of mismanagement. The ICPC’s 2020 report, for instance, detailed cases where lawmakers nominated projects that were either unnecessary or designed to benefit their associates. In one instance, a lawmaker allocated funds for a borehole project in an area with no water scarcity, while another awarded a contract to a company linked to their family. Such examples fuel the perception that constituency projects are less about development and more about personal enrichment.
The tension between lawmakers and critics like Obasanjo reflects a broader struggle within Nigeria’s political system. On one hand, legislators are expected to advocate for their constituencies and ensure equitable resource distribution. On the other, their actions are often scrutinized for signs of corruption and self-interest. Resolving this tension requires not only reforming the constituency project system but also addressing the underlying incentives that drive political behavior.
Pathways to Reform
Obasanjo’s critique, while provocative, is not the first call for reform, nor is it likely to be the last. Over the years, civil society organizations, policy analysts, and even some lawmakers have proposed measures to improve the constituency project system. These proposals aim to balance the need for local development with the imperative of transparency and accountability.
One potential solution is to decentralize the implementation of constituency projects, shifting responsibility from lawmakers to local government authorities. Local governments, being closer to the people, are better positioned to identify and prioritize community needs. However, this approach would require strengthening local governance structures, which are often plagued by their own issues of corruption and inefficiency.
Another option is to integrate constituency projects into broader national development plans, ensuring that they align with strategic priorities such as poverty reduction, education, and infrastructure development. This would require greater coordination between the executive and legislative branches, as well as the involvement of independent experts to assess project feasibility and impact.
Technology could also play a role in improving transparency. For example, a public online portal tracking the status of constituency projects, including budget allocations, contractor details, and progress reports, could empower citizens to monitor spending and hold lawmakers accountable. Such a platform would also provide data for researchers and policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of these projects over time.
The Bigger Picture: Governance and Public Trust
Obasanjo’s remarks about constituency projects are part of a larger conversation about governance in Nigeria. The country faces significant challenges, including widespread poverty, inadequate infrastructure, and a history of systemic corruption. These issues are compounded by a political culture that often prioritizes personal gain over public welfare, eroding trust in institutions and hindering development.
Constituency projects, in their current form, are a microcosm of these broader challenges. They represent the promise of democracy—delivering resources to communities through elected representatives—but also its pitfalls, as unchecked power and weak accountability mechanisms create opportunities for abuse. Addressing these issues requires not only reforming the constituency project system but also fostering a culture of transparency, accountability, and civic engagement.
Conclusion
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s description of constituency projects as “daylight robbery” has brought renewed attention to a longstanding issue in Nigerian governance. While these projects were designed to address local needs and promote equitable development, their implementation has often fallen short, marred by allegations of corruption, mismanagement, and lack of transparency. Obasanjo’s critique underscores the urgent need for reform, from enhancing oversight and community involvement to aligning projects with national development goals.
As Nigeria grapples with the challenges of governance and development, the debate over constituency projects serves as a reminder of the importance of accountability and public trust. By addressing the systemic flaws in the system, Nigeria can move closer to realizing the democratic ideals of representation and equitable resource distribution. Until then, constituency projects will remain a contentious issue, symbolizing both the potential and the pitfalls of the country’s political system.
About the Author
