Why the North-West Development Commission Deserves Facts, Fairness and the Opportunity to Deliver
There are moments when an institution is tried not before a court of law, but in the court of public opinion.
In that difficult court, allegations frequently travel faster than explanations, sensational headlines overpower documentary facts, and questions are sometimes reported as though they were verdicts.
The North-West Development Commission recently found itself in this uncomfortable position following its engagement with the Senate Committee on Regional Development.
Reports emerging from the meeting focused heavily on questions raised concerning approximately ₦943 million described as expenditure on board allowances, the absence of executive directors, official engagements with governors and other administrative matters.
The reports understandably attracted public interest. Nigerians have every right to ask how public funds are managed. The Senate also has a constitutional responsibility to scrutinise government institutions.
Accountability is not persecution.
Oversight is not hostility.
However, it is equally important to state that a question raised during legislative oversight is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing.
The Senate Committee did not convict the North-West Development Commission of corruption. It did not establish that the money under discussion had been stolen, diverted or fraudulently appropriated.
What occurred was an oversight engagement during which explanations were requested and subsequently provided.
That distinction is fundamental.
Unfortunately, parts of the public conversation blurred the line between an expenditure being queried and an expenditure being declared unlawful. The Commission was practically placed in the dock, tried through headlines and condemned before its explanations could receive equal attention.
That is neither fair to the Commission nor helpful to the development of the North-West.
The ₦943 Million Question
The figure of ₦943 million naturally commands attention. It is a substantial amount of public money and must be properly explained, documented and accounted for.
But a large figure is not automatically a fraudulent figure.
The responsible questions should be: What period did the expenditure cover? How many board members and official activities were involved? What components were classified under the broad description of “board allowances”? Were the payments authorised? Were they captured in the approved budget? Were they consistent with applicable government financial regulations and remuneration provisions?
These are the questions that separate intelligent scrutiny from sensational condemnation.
A cumulative expenditure involving several members of a governing board, official meetings, statutory responsibilities, travel and other approved institutional activities should not be presented as though one individual collected ₦943 million for personal enjoyment.
Context matters.
Classification matters.
Documentation matters.
The Commission’s clarification following its engagement with the Senate Committee is therefore important because it gives the public a fuller picture than the impression created by the initial reports.
Where expenditure was duly appropriated, approved and paid in accordance with applicable regulations, the proper description is authorised institutional expenditure, not embezzlement.
Should any component subsequently be found irregular by a competent audit or investigative authority, the law provides mechanisms for accountability. But no public institution should be convicted by insinuation before such a finding is made.
Executive Directors: Who Has the Power to Appoint?
Another major issue concerned the reported absence or delayed appointment of executive directors.
This matter must also be situated within the law.
The North-West Development Commission is a statutory federal institution. The composition and appointment of its executive leadership are governed by its enabling legislation and the constitutional authority of the President, subject, where applicable, to confirmation by the Senate.
The Governing Board cannot unilaterally appoint officials whose appointment is legally reserved for the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
It would therefore be unreasonable to blame the Commission for failing to exercise a power it does not possess.
The absence of executive directors may create administrative challenges, but that does not automatically amount to misconduct by the chairman, managing director or board. It is primarily an institutional gap requiring action from the appropriate appointing authority.
The Commission should not be condemned for respecting the limits of its statutory powers.
Stakeholder Visits Were Not Tourism Excursions
Questions were also reportedly raised about visits undertaken by the Commission’s leadership to governors and other stakeholders across the North-West.
But a regional development commission cannot operate effectively from behind office walls.
The North-West consists of seven states—Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara—with different developmental priorities, security challenges, ecological conditions, infrastructure deficits and economic opportunities.
A pioneer commission established to serve these states must consult their governments, traditional institutions, business communities, civil society organisations, development partners, women, young people and affected communities.
Stakeholder engagement is not an optional ceremony. It is part of responsible development planning.
Without consultation, the Commission would risk duplicating existing projects, imposing programmes on communities, misreading local priorities and wasting public resources.
The Commission’s visits to governors should therefore be evaluated by their purpose, approvals, documentation and outcomes, not dismissed merely because travel expenses were incurred.
Indeed, early engagements with state governments are necessary to secure cooperation and establish a coordinated regional development framework. Such cooperation is indispensable to any commission expected to work effectively across seven states.
Naturally, every claim relating to transport, accommodation or duty tour allowances must comply with government regulations. But the existence of an official travel claim does not, without more, establish corruption.
A Commission Born Out of Regional Necessity
The North-West Development Commission was not created as an ornamental bureaucracy.
It emerged from the urgent need to confront the enormous developmental challenges facing one of Nigeria’s most important regions.
The Commission’s enabling law charges it with receiving and managing funds for the rehabilitation, resettlement and reconstruction of communities and infrastructure affected by multidimensional crises.
It is also expected to address poverty, low literacy, ecological problems and other developmental challenges across the North-West.
The region is central to Nigeria’s food security, commerce, population and cultural identity. Yet it has suffered severely from insecurity, displacement, environmental degradation, unemployment, infrastructure deficits and disruption of agricultural production.
Communities have been displaced.
Schools and markets have been disrupted.
Farmers have lost access to their land.
Roads, homes and businesses have suffered from years of instability.
The establishment of the Commission was therefore an acknowledgement that the problems of the North-West require a coordinated, long-term and region-wide response.
Its mission is to facilitate socioeconomic recovery through infrastructure reconstruction, poverty reduction, peacebuilding, agricultural development and human-capital advancement.
This is the institution Nigerians must strengthen, not destroy through premature judgment.
Building a Pioneer Institution
The NWDC is still a relatively young organisation.
A pioneer institution must develop offices, recruit personnel, establish financial systems, prepare budgets, formulate policies, consult stakeholders, conduct needs assessments and create administrative structures before major interventions can be effectively delivered.
This foundational phase costs money.
It also attracts intense scrutiny because the public naturally expects immediate physical projects. But responsible development cannot be constructed on institutional disorder.
The Commission must first establish systems capable of transparently managing large-scale interventions across seven states.
This does not mean that every administrative expenditure should be accepted without question. It means that the Commission should be judged with an understanding of its stage of institutional development and the responsibilities involved in establishing a regional organisation from the ground up.
The Senate’s Final Position Must Not Be Suppressed
Rather than treating the Senate engagement as proof that the Commission had collapsed morally, it should be understood as part of the normal process of democratic accountability.
The Senate asked questions.
The Commission appeared.
Documents were examined.
Explanations were offered.
The relevant authorities participated.
The Committee subsequently proceeded into an executive session to consider the issues and obtain further clarification.
That is how legislative oversight is supposed to work.
But there is an important part of the encounter that must not be omitted from the public account.
At the conclusion of the process, the Chairman of the Senate Committee, Senator Babangida Hussaini, stated during a press interview that the Committee was satisfied with the processes undertaken by the North-West Development Commission so far and would continue to follow up on its activities.
That post-engagement position is significant.
It came after the questions had been asked, after the documents had been considered and after the Commission had been given the opportunity to explain itself.
Why, then, should the questions dominate the headlines while the Committee Chairman’s expression of satisfaction is ignored?
Why should the interrogation be amplified while the outcome of the engagement is suppressed?
Fairness demands that both sides of the process be reported.
The Senate Committee did not emerge from the engagement announcing that funds had been stolen. It did not declare the Commission guilty of corruption. It did not pronounce the expenditure fraudulent.
Instead, the Committee Chairman expressed satisfaction with the processes undertaken by the Commission and promised continued legislative follow-up.
This does not mean that the Commission is beyond scrutiny. Neither does it prevent the Senate from continuing its constitutional oversight responsibilities.
It simply means that the engagement cannot honestly be presented as a conviction of the Commission.
An institution that submits itself to legislative scrutiny, responds to questions and makes its records available should not automatically be branded corrupt.
Accountability requires openness from public institutions, but it equally demands fairness from lawmakers, journalists and citizens.
The purpose of oversight should be clarification, correction and institutional strengthening, not reputational execution.
The Media Must Report the Outcome Too
The media has a constitutional and moral duty to hold public institutions accountable. But that responsibility includes reporting explanations and outcomes with the same seriousness given to allegations and queries.
When the questions occupy the front page while the answers are buried, the public is denied a complete account.
When the Committee’s initial concerns are widely circulated but its Chairman’s subsequent expression of satisfaction is ignored, public perception becomes distorted.
This is not a request for media protection.
It is a demand for media fairness.
There is a profound difference between:
“Senate asks NWDC to explain expenditure,”
and:
“NWDC squanders public funds.”
The first reports an oversight proceeding.
The second pronounces a verdict.
There is also something fundamentally unbalanced about reporting that a commission was queried without informing the same public that, after receiving explanations, the Chairman of the Committee said it was satisfied with the processes undertaken so far.
The beginning of the hearing cannot be reported as the whole story when the conclusion provides vital context.
Responsible journalism must preserve that distinction.
Beyond the Storm
The integrity of the North-West Development Commission will ultimately be established not merely by press statements, but by transparent accounts, completed projects, revived communities, empowered young people, productive farms, reconstructed infrastructure and measurable improvements in human development.
The Commission must neither be shielded from legitimate scrutiny nor sacrificed to sensationalism.
Where questions arise, answers must be provided.
Where errors exist, they must be corrected.
Where false impressions have been created, the record must be set straight.
But Nigerians must resist the temptation to destroy a strategic institution on the strength of incomplete reports and unproven assumptions.
The North-West needs the Commission.
Nigeria needs the North-West to be secure, productive and prosperous.
Legislative scrutiny should make the Commission stronger. Media attention should promote transparency. Public concern should encourage responsiveness.
The current controversy must therefore not become the obituary of the NWDC. It should be remembered as a moment when the Commission faced legislative questions, offered explanations and received an expression of satisfaction from the Chairman of the supervising Senate Committee.
That is not a declaration of guilt.
It is an affirmation that democratic oversight has a beginning, a process and an outcome—and that all three must be honestly reported.
A question is not a conviction.
An allegation is not evidence.
Oversight is not a declaration of guilt.
And a damaging headline must not be allowed to overpower the clarifying conclusion of the very legislative engagement from which it arose.
Let the North-West Development Commission be judged by verified facts, lawful processes and the development it delivers, not by the loudest headline of the day.
Wale Ojo-Lanre, Esq.
