By Iroyin Yoruba Television
A coalition of civil society organisations has petitioned the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission over alleged irregularities in Nigeria's 2026 federal budget, asking the anti-corruption agency to investigate how disputed allocations and projects entered the national spending plan.
The coalition is also calling for Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, to step aside from the committee pending an independent investigation into the allegations.
The petition was presented in Lagos on September 30 and reported on October 1, making the submission itself a new anti-corruption development within the newsroom's current reporting window.
The allegations contained in the petition have not been established as facts, and the senator has not been convicted of any offence in connection with them. The requested investigation is intended by the coalition to establish how the disputed budget provisions were originated, processed, approved and assigned.
PFIPC ALLOCATION AT CENTRE OF PETITION
One of the major issues raised by the coalition concerns an allocation of about N1.3 billion to the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, or PFIPC, in the 2026 federal budget.
The controversy surrounding the allocation has attracted attention because the Federal Government has maintained that the purported council was not established through any valid government instrument.
The ICPC has previously stated that its investigation found that the PFIPC was not created by law, executive order or another valid government instrument and that Adeniyi Adeyemi, who presented himself as its director-general, was not appointed by the Federal Government.
Adeyemi was subsequently arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on charges relating to forgery, fraud, embezzlement and impersonation. He pleaded not guilty and was remanded in custody pending further proceedings.
The new civil society petition asks the ICPC to go beyond the conduct of the alleged promoter and determine how an organisation whose legal status is disputed could have appeared in the national budget.
HOW DID THE ALLOCATION ENTER THE BUDGET?
The coalition is asking the anti-corruption agency to establish the chain of responsibility behind the disputed allocation.
Its request includes an examination of who proposed the provision, who processed it, which officials reviewed it and who ultimately approved or defended it during the budget process.
The question is significant because the national budget passes through several stages before becoming law.
Budget proposals are prepared and submitted, examined by relevant institutions, considered by the National Assembly and eventually incorporated into an Appropriation Act.
The coalition argues that the presence of an allocation for a body whose legal existence has subsequently been disputed raises questions about the effectiveness of verification and oversight mechanisms within that process.
The Budget Office of the Federation has previously stated that N1.302 billion was appropriated to the PFIPC but that no funds were released because the statutory conditions required for expenditure had not been met.
That distinction is important.
An appropriation creates legal authority for spending subject to applicable conditions, but it does not necessarily mean that the entire amount has actually been disbursed.
The coalition is nevertheless asking the ICPC to establish how the provision entered the budget and whether any person obtained an improper advantage from the process.
ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING OTHER PROJECTS
The petition also raises questions about approximately N8.4 billion allocated for road projects under the 2026 budget of the National Commission for Almajiri and Out-of-School Children Education.
The coalition argues that road construction does not fall within the commission's core statutory mandate and wants the ICPC to establish how the projects came to be assigned to the institution.
The commission has previously explained that the projects were constituency projects inserted by members of the National Assembly rather than projects conceived by the commission itself.
The civil society coalition is asking investigators to establish who originated the projects, who facilitated their inclusion in the budget and why they were assigned to an institution whose primary responsibilities relate to Almajiri education and out-of-school children.
It also wants the agency to determine whether any individual or organisation obtained an improper advantage from the arrangement.
These questions, however, remain allegations and requests for investigation rather than established findings of corruption.
CALL FOR PROJECT VERIFICATION
Another part of the petition concerns the physical verification of federal projects.
The coalition wants the ICPC to examine original appropriation documents, project codes, agency submissions, committee records, procurement documents, payment records and the actual locations of projects.
This type of verification is important because budget documents identify projects and allocations, while physical inspection can determine whether projects exist, where they are located and whether they correspond with the descriptions contained in official records.
The group alleges that some projects originally associated with federal institutions in different parts of Nigeria may have been relocated to Ogun State.
It specifically referred to projects reportedly associated with the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and the Federal Cooperative College, Oji River, among others.
The coalition wants investigators to determine whether such projects were lawfully relocated, substituted, diverted or otherwise altered after appearing in budget documents.
SENATOR ADEOLA'S ROLE
The petition also raises questions concerning projects allegedly associated with Senator Adeola, who represents Ogun West and chairs the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
The coalition has asked the ICPC to examine the senator's role in relation to the disputed allocations and projects.
It is important to distinguish between a lawmaker's constituency involvement and criminal responsibility.
Members of the National Assembly can sponsor or facilitate constituency projects through established budgetary procedures. The existence of a project associated with a particular lawmaker does not, by itself, establish corruption.
The coalition's request is for the ICPC to investigate whether any public resources were improperly diverted or whether any person obtained an unlawful advantage.
The senator has not been convicted in relation to the allegations contained in the petition.
PREVIOUS PETITION ALSO CITED
The new submission follows an earlier petition by the Pan-African Society for Social & Economic Change, which also called for investigation into alleged budgetary irregularities involving projects linked to Adeola.
That earlier organisation made claims concerning projects allegedly associated with the senator between 2023 and 2026.
The new coalition is asking the ICPC to conduct its own independent examination rather than treating the earlier allegations as established facts.
This distinction is important because an anti-corruption investigation must establish what actually happened through documentary evidence, financial records, procurement information and testimony.
The ICPC would ultimately have to determine whether there is evidence of an offence and whether anyone should face prosecution.
WHAT THE COALITION WANTS ICPC TO INVESTIGATE
The coalition has requested a broad investigation covering several areas.
Among its demands are examination of the original 2026 Appropriation Act and records showing how the disputed PFIPC allocation entered the budget.
It also wants a forensic review of projects identified in the petition, including procurement records, payments, contractors and beneficiaries.
The coalition is asking investigators to verify the legal status and statutory responsibilities of the agencies associated with the disputed projects.
It further wants the ICPC to investigate claims that federal projects may have been diverted or relocated and determine whether public funds were used for political or personal advantage.
Where investigators establish that public money was unlawfully diverted or that the government suffered financial loss, the coalition is asking for recovery of the funds and prosecution of those responsible where the evidence meets the required legal threshold.
IMPORTANCE OF BUDGET OVERSIGHT
The petition highlights a broader issue in public finance: the importance of tracing government spending from appropriation to implementation.
A budget provision represents a planned allocation, but effective accountability requires monitoring what happens after the allocation is approved.
This includes determining whether the project exists, whether procurement followed the law, whether contractors were properly selected, whether payments were authorised and whether the intended beneficiaries received the promised service or infrastructure.
Where questions arise over an agency's legal mandate or a project's location, documentary verification becomes particularly important.
A transparent process can help distinguish legitimate constituency development from irregular expenditure.
DUE PROCESS REMAINS CENTRAL
The allegations in the petition require careful handling because they concern named public officials and the management of public resources.
A petition does not establish guilt.
The ICPC would have to review the evidence and determine whether the allegations justify investigation, whether wrongdoing occurred and whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed against any individual.
Those potentially affected by the investigation would also have the opportunity to respond to allegations and provide relevant documents.
This process is essential to ensure that anti-corruption enforcement remains evidence-based rather than driven solely by political or public pressure.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The next stage will depend on the response of the ICPC to the coalition's petition.
The commission may review the allegations and supporting documents before determining what investigative steps are appropriate.
If an investigation is opened, investigators could examine budget records, legislative documents, procurement files, payment records, agency submissions and project locations.
The commission could also invite relevant officials and other persons connected with the disputed allocations to provide information or clarification.
For the civil society coalition, the immediate objective is to ensure that the allegations receive independent scrutiny.
For the government and relevant institutions, the controversy highlights the importance of maintaining clear records showing how budget provisions originate and how public funds are eventually spent.
The central question raised by the petition is not simply whether disputed allocations appeared in the 2026 budget. It is whether the processes that produced those allocations complied with Nigerian law and public-sector procedures.
That question can only be answered conclusively through examination of the underlying records and evidence.
Until such an investigation is completed, the allegations against Senator Adeola and any other individuals named in the petition should remain treated as allegations rather than established wrongdoing.