The recent revelation that the 2024 budget of the Federal Government of Nigeria achieved a dismal 25% implementation of its capital component is both saddening and appalling. This failure underscores a deep-seated challenge in public financial management, one that threatens the nation’s economic and infrastructural development. While the recurrent expenditure achieved full implementation, the disparity between these two critical budgetary components demands urgent attention and corrective action.

The capital component of any budget is its engine for growth and progress. It funds infrastructure projects, such as roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other development initiatives that directly impact the lives of citizens and spur economic activities. Conversely, recurrent expenditure merely sustains the government machinery through the payment of salaries, pensions, and other overhead costs. While the latter is essential, prioritising it to the detriment of capital investment stifles the nation’s potential for growth and innovation.

A 25% implementation rate for capital expenditure raises critical questions about governance and accountability. Why are Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) unable to deliver on their mandates? Are there systemic bottlenecks, such as delayed release of funds, poor project planning, or outright corruption? These questions demand immediate answers, as the consequences of such poor performance are dire. Projects meant to enhance infrastructure and public services are left incomplete, communities remain underserved, and economic opportunities are squandered.

The impact of this failure is far-reaching. Nigeria’s infrastructural deficit continues to widen, exacerbating unemployment and slowing economic growth. Businesses suffer from inadequate transport networks, inconsistent power supply, and poor healthcare facilities, further discouraging investment and productivity. Citizens, particularly in rural areas, bear the brunt of these inadequacies, as essential services remain out of reach.

• 2024 budget: Questions over 25% capital component performance
• Who will save our local government councils?

The recurring pattern of underperformance in capital budget implementation is unacceptable and unsustainable. To address this, the Federal Government must prioritise holding MDAs accountable. This begins with transparent and timely release of funds. Delays in fund disbursement often hinder the execution of capital projects, leaving contractors unable to mobilise resources effectively. Furthermore, the government must establish and enforce stringent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to track project progress and ensure adherence to timelines and standards.

Another critical aspect is the role of the legislature and civil society in providing oversight. The National Assembly should strengthen its budgetary review processes, ensuring that MDAs justify their expenditures and deliver measurable outcomes. Civil society organisations and the media also have a role to play in highlighting instances of poor performance and demanding accountability from public officials.

Lastly, the government must adopt a performance-driven culture within its agencies. Leadership at the helm of MDAs must be held to strict key performance indicators (KPIs), with rewards for excellence and sanctions for underperformance. Without this, the cycle of inefficiency and mediocrity will persist, to the detriment of national development.

The 2024 budget’s poor capital implementation is a wake-up call for Nigeria. Economic and infrastructural development cannot thrive on recurrent expenditure alone. The government must urgently address the systemic flaws hindering capital project execution, ensuring that future budgets deliver tangible benefits to the people. Anything less is an abdication of responsibility and a betrayal of the public trust.

Malachy Udom, a public affairs commentator wrote from Life Camp, Abuja