In many climes, legislative oversight is taken seriously by lawmakers given its ability to scrutinise budget allocations, sanitise procurement processes, and ensure that projects are implemented to specification. But here, claims abound that this assignment has become a conduit for personal gains, AMEH OCHOJILA reports.

Legislative oversight is often hailed as a fundamental pillar of democracy, which ensures that the executive arm of government remains accountable to the people.

However, in Nigeria, this crucial function has increasingly come under heavy scrutiny, with concerns that it is being weaponised for personal gains rather than the public interest. 

At its core, legislative oversight is designed to ensure that public funds are used efficiently and government policies align with national interests.  The 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) empowers the National Assembly to monitor the activities of ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs), particularly through public hearings, investigative panels, and budgetary approvals. 

In theory, this should prevent executive excesses, enforce accountability, and curb mismanagement, however, in practice, they are allegedly used for individual gains.

Lawmakers, who ought to act as guardians of the public purse, are frequently accused of using their oversight powers as leverage to extract illicit benefits from government agencies and private contractors.

This, observers argue, accounts for the stiff competition for the chairmanship of certain committees in the National Assembly, including oil and gas, and finance, among others, which are alleged to be the exclusive preserve of loyalists of the leadership of both chambers, as well as that of the government in power. 

Certain revelations in the past have exposed how some legislators allegedly exploit oversight responsibilities for personal enrichment. For instance, media reports not long ago, suggested that the leadership of certain committees demanded bribes before approving budgets, and clear officials during probes, while some even influenced contract awards. 

The recent Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation, and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) scandal, where a senator disclosed that he takes home N21 million monthly, exemplifies how financial incentives may drive lawmakers’ actions more than genuine oversight.

Reports also abound that lawmakers are using intimidation and threats to force heads of universities to pay N8 million each to get approval for their allocations in the 2025 budgets.

The report claimed that members of the Senate Committee on Tertiary Education and TETFund, and the House Committee on University Education, demanded money from universities to approve their budgets.

Using an elaborate and complex system created by the lawmakers, 60 federal university vice-chancellors were required to pay N8 million each (N4 million each to Senate and House Committees).

However, the Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University, Gusau, Prof. Muazu Abubakar,  exonerated members of the House of Representatives Committee on University Education over the alleged request for N480 million as a condition for passing federal universities’ 2025 budgets.

In a letter addressed to the Chairman of the committee, Abubakar Fulata (APC-Jigawa) dated Jan. 27, Abubakar faulted the media reports alleging that the lawmakers were pressuring some university vice-chancellors to pay the said amount.

The vice-chancellor, who personally signed the letter, stated that in the said publication, it was alleged that lawmakers were using intimidation and threats to force heads of universities to pay N8 million each to approve their allocations in the 2025 budget.

On the other hand, MDAs often complain of being harassed by lawmakers who use oversight visits as a pretext to solicit kickbacks. In some cases, agencies that resist these demands face punitive measures such as inflated audit queries, or prolonged budgetary delays. 

As the second estate of the realm, the legislature embodies both the sovereignty of the people and their representation. It is responsible for lawmaking, providing oversight on the executive, and acting as a voice for constituents. The 1999 Constitution, in Sections 88 and 89, grants the National Assembly the authority to investigate individuals or bodies responsible for implementing laws passed by the legislature. These investigations are carried out through its various committees.

At its core, legislative investigation serves multiple purposes: gathering information for lawmaking; exposing corruption; waste, or inefficiency; ensuring that policies align with legal frameworks, scrutinising the objectivity and honesty of executive strategies, and confirming that intended policy outcomes are achieved. 

However, in recent years, this oversight function has increasingly met with resistance from the executive. Government officials and private individuals often disregard legislative summons with impunity, while some senior officials openly dismiss legislative resolutions as mere recommendations.

Yet, the legislature itself has struggled to uphold the credibility of its oversight role. High-profile investigations, such as those into the petroleum subsidy scandal, and the Nigeria Exchange Commission, have been marred by allegations of compromise and lack of accountability. 

These failures reflect a broader legislative trust and crisis, where both the executive and legislature falter in maintaining the integrity of the system that they are meant to uphold.

For instance Senator Uche Ekwunife representing Anambra Central District, had reportedly disclosed that she facilitated employment for over 600 individuals from her constituency during her four-year tenure. She highlighted this achievement during a town hall meeting in Awka, Anambra State.
 
Others who according to media reports helped to secure federal placements for their constituents include Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan also reportedly secured a federal government job for Sheidu Abdulhameed, a constituent from Okene Local Council. Abdulhameed, a civil engineering graduate, expressed his gratitude publicly after receiving his appointment letter.
 
Earlier, Senator Smart Adeyemi who represented Kogi West District had pointed out that while he could not provide jobs for everyone, he supported about 600 people from his constituency with monthly stipends. He discussed this initiative during an interview, emphasising his commitment to assisting his constituents.
 
According to Mathew Echo, an Abuja-based lawyer: “Legislative oversight ought to be a legislative tool to ensure that the executive branch of government carries out its functions, particularly the judicious application of funds appropriated for developmental purposes.”

Bayo Akinlade, another lawyer described as unfortunate, the fact that legislative oversight has failed to promote accountability in governance, stressing: “What we see today are constituency projects undertaken by the legislators themselves, and what does this tell us? It tells us that one way or the other we now have funds being collected by the legislators to do the job of the executive arm of government. So in my view, legislative oversight is now something that the legislators embark on only if they are compelled to, or if they have a personal interest in what they are overseeing.”

He continued: “We hear rumours all the time about money exchanging hands periodically in the legislative quarters and we accept this as normal textbook lobbying, but lobbying has its ethical boundaries, which I don’t think is respected in Nigeria. By and large, the oversight function of legislators is important and necessary, but I doubt if it promotes accountability in the way we understand accountability to mean,” he added.

For observers, the significant question that is agitating their minds is the propriety of lawmakers who are expected to police the government and its MDAs to ensure that they deliver public service turning into contractors and lobbyists for jobs.

They insist that when lawmakers engage in lobbying for contracts and government jobs, their ability to provide independent oversight is severely compromised, and they can no longer objectively scrutinise budget allocations, procurement processes, or the implementation of projects once they are financially invested in securing contracts for themselves or their associates. This creates a fundamental conflict of interest, as the same individuals tasked with preventing corruption become beneficiaries of government spending.

A lawmaker who lobbies for government contracts has a vested interest in maintaining a system of patronage and political favoritism. This not only distorts fair competition in public procurement, but also increases the likelihood of inflated contracts, substandard execution of projects, and outright embezzlement of funds. When lawmakers are involved in these dealings, it becomes difficult to hold civil servants and ministers accountable, as they are all part of the same transactional network.

A democratic system thrives on checks and balances. The executive, legislature, and judiciary are meant to function independently while keeping each other accountable.

However, when legislators prioritise contracts over their duty to the people, they lose their power to challenge executive excesses. This weakens the ability of parliament to function as an effective counterweight to the executive arm, leading to unchecked government spending and policy missteps.

To address this issue, there must be strict enforcement of laws that prohibit public officeholders from engaging in contract awards and lobbying. Nigeria’s Code of Conduct for Public Officers and the Public Procurement Act provides some guidelines, but enforcement remains weak. Stronger penalties and institutional reforms are needed to deter lawmakers from engaging in such unethical practices.