The controversy surrounding the spending practices of the South East Development Commission (SEDC) has once again highlighted the urgent need for strict oversight of Nigeria’s zonal Development Commissions. These agencies were created to serve as vehicles for accelerated regional development, not platforms for bureaucratic excess, questionable expenditures or administrative extravagance. The concerns raised over the management of the SEDC under Mark Okoye therefore deserve serious attention from the National Assembly, the Presidency and the Nigerian public.
The idea of regional Development Commissions did not begin with the current administration. Its roots can be traced to persistent calls by South-East leaders and groups who argued that the region never received adequate rehabilitation after the Nigerian Civil War despite promises made by the General Yakubu Gowon administration. Feelings of marginalisation led to various private initiatives, including the South East Development Initiative (SEDI), which struggled to achieve its objectives because it lacked sufficient funding and federal backing. A major breakthrough came in October 2017 when President Muhammadu Buhari established the North East Development Commission (NEDC) to address the devastation caused by the Boko Haram terrorism. Under its pioneer MD/CEO, Mohammed Alkali, the Commission recorded significant interventions in infrastructure, education, healthcare and humanitarian support. The relative success of the NEDC sparked demands from other geo-political zones for similar institutions.
President Bola Tinubu deserves commendation for signing into law the bills establishing development commissions across the country. The objective was noble: to ensure that every geopolitical zone benefits from a federally funded mechanism for addressing peculiar developmental challenges and promoting balanced national growth. Unfortunately, the unfolding issues at the SEDC threaten to undermine public confidence in the entire concept. Senate investigations reportedly questioned expenditures that included about ?153 million on an Abuja liaison office, concerns over billions of naira whose utilisation required further clarification, and spending categories that lawmakers considered inadequately documented.
Whether these concerns ultimately amount to financial malfeasance or administrative recklessness is for the appropriate authorities to determine. However, the mere existence of such serious questions at a commission still in its infancy is troubling. The lesson is clear. Every zonal Development Commission must be subjected to rigorous and continuous scrutiny. The National Assembly should strengthen its oversight functions, while the Presidency must establish performance benchmarks tied to measurable developmental outcomes. Transparency should not be optional. Oversight should also be broadened beyond government circles. Representatives of the media, professional bodies and credible civil society organisations should be incorporated into independent monitoring frameworks. Public funds demand public accountability. Accountability, transparency and visible results that improve lives are non-negotiable.
