Nigeria’s 2026 federal budget contains more than ₦210 billion in allocations that appear to overlap across government offices, agencies and programmes.
A review of the budget found several cases where similar projects appeared under different budget lines. In some cases, the same office or programme received money through more than one channel.
This does not automatically mean that public funds will be stolen or misused. Different agencies may have separate duties under the same programme.
However, the budget does not always explain those differences clearly. This makes it difficult for lawmakers, auditors and citizens to know whether the allocations support different activities or repeat the same spending.
President Bola Tinubu signed the ₦68.32 trillion 2026 budget into law on April 17, 2026. The final budget was much higher than the ₦58.18 trillion proposal first presented to the National Assembly.
The overlapping allocations raise fresh concerns at a time when the government is asking Nigerians to accept higher living costs and difficult economic reforms.
Why Did One Government Office Receive Two Allocations?
One of the clearest examples involves the Office of the Special Adviser to the President on Policy and Coordination.
The office appeared twice under the Service Wide Vote, which covers several centrally managed government expenses.
One budget line allocated ₦1 billion to the office. Another provided ₦2.73 billion.
Together, the two allocations amounted to ₦3.73 billion.
The main concern is not that the office received funding. The concern is that the budget did not clearly explain why the money was divided into two separate allocations.
Were the funds meant for different projects? Did one allocation cover salaries while the other covered programmes? Or were both allocations meant for similar activities?
Without a detailed explanation, it is difficult to calculate the office’s real cost or track how the money will be spent.
Is Nigeria Funding the Same Poverty Programme Twice?
The National Poverty Reduction with Growth Strategy also appeared under more than one funding channel.
The programme received ₦100 billion under the Service Wide Vote. Another allocation linked to the same poverty-reduction programme appeared under the Federal Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning.
That means close to ₦200 billion may have been connected to similar poverty-reduction activities.
The government may have a reasonable explanation. One allocation could support the central programme, while the other could fund projects directly managed by the ministry.
But the budget does not give enough details to show the difference.
This raises an important question: are the two allocations supporting separate parts of the programme, or is the government paying twice for similar activities?
The question matters because poverty-reduction programmes often involve many agencies, contractors and beneficiaries. When funding is spread across several budget lines, it becomes harder to track results.
Nigerians need to know how many people will benefit, where the projects will take place and what success will look like.
Why Are Similar Lagos Offices Still Receiving Separate Funding?
The budget also provided money for different federal liaison offices in Lagos.
Both the State House and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation received allocations for Lagos-based operations.
The two institutions perform different roles, so they may have separate reasons for maintaining offices in Lagos.
However, the allocations raise questions about government efficiency.
Nigeria moved its federal capital from Lagos to Abuja in 1991. More than three decades later, several federal institutions still operate separate liaison offices in the country’s commercial capital.
Could some of these offices share buildings, staff or administrative services? Could the government reduce costs by combining similar operations?
These questions are important because Nigeria faces high debt costs and limited revenue. Every administrative expense should therefore be properly explained.
One Bus Programme Divided Into Five Projects
The Federal Road Safety Corps’ mass-transit bus programme appeared in five different budget lines.
Each allocation was worth ₦1.3 billion, bringing the total to about ₦6.5 billion.
The descriptions were slightly different, but all five projects involved buying, distributing or deploying buses to support transportation and economic activity.
The projects may cover different regions or groups. If that is the case, the budget should clearly state the locations, number of buses, beneficiaries and delivery plans.
Without those details, the public cannot easily understand why one programme was divided into five separate allocations.
It also becomes harder to check whether the same type of contract is being awarded several times under different names.
Why Does Splitting Projects Into Smaller Allocations Matter?
Dividing one large programme into several smaller budget lines is sometimes called budget fragmentation or budget atomisation.
The practice is not always wrong.
A national programme may need to be divided by region, agency or stage of implementation. Different institutions may also be responsible for different parts of the same project.
The problem begins when the budget descriptions are too broad or too similar.
When that happens, it becomes difficult to know whether the allocations are truly different.
Fragmentation can hide the total cost of a programme. It can also make it harder for lawmakers, journalists, civil-society organisations and citizens to monitor contracts.
In the worst cases, it can create room for duplicated projects, repeated payments and poor coordination between agencies.
Can Lawmakers Properly Track These Allocations?
The National Assembly is responsible for reviewing and approving the federal budget.
However, lawmakers may struggle to provide strong oversight when related projects are spread across different agencies and budget codes.
To understand the full cost of a programme, lawmakers may have to search through thousands of pages and compare several allocations.
This weakens transparency.
A clearer budget would group related projects together and explain how each allocation supports a different goal.
It should also show the project location, expected beneficiaries, delivery period, responsible agency and expected results.
Without this information, approving the budget is only the first step. Tracking actual spending becomes even more difficult.
What Should Nigeria’s Oversight Agencies Investigate?
The ₦210 billion identified in overlapping allocations does not prove corruption.
A proper investigation would need to go beyond the approved budget.
The National Assembly, Auditor-General of the Federation, Bureau of Public Procurement and anti-corruption agencies would need to examine procurement plans, contract awards, payment records and implementation reports.
They would need to answer several questions.
Were separate contracts awarded for the same work? Did the projects have different beneficiaries? Were the funds released? Were the projects completed? Did Nigerians receive value for the money spent?
These records would help determine whether the allocations were properly separated or unnecessarily repeated.
Why Has the Government Not Explained the Allocations?
Questions were reportedly sent to the Federal Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning, the Budget Office of the Federation, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Federal Road Safety Corps.
The institutions had not responded by the time the original investigation was published.
Their silence does not prove wrongdoing.
However, it leaves important questions unanswered.
Government agencies should be able to explain why similar projects appear under different budget lines. They should also state how they plan to prevent duplication during procurement and implementation.
Public money should not only be spent legally. It should also be spent openly and efficiently.
What Does This Mean for Nigerian Taxpayers?
For taxpayers, the main issue is accountability.
Nigerians are paying more for fuel, electricity, transportation, food and other basic needs. The government has defended many of its economic policies by saying that the country must reduce waste and manage public resources better.
That makes transparency in the 2026 budget even more important.
Citizens deserve to know why the same office, programme or type of project appears more than once.
They also deserve clear evidence that every allocation serves a different purpose and provides value.
The government may have valid reasons for the ₦210 billion in overlapping allocations. But until those reasons are clearly explained, questions over duplication, waste and weak oversight will remain.
