Nigeria’s Defence Budget Leaves Oversight in the Dark

Nigeria’s 2026 defence budget assigns N2.4 trillion—75.9 per cent of its N3.154 trillion total—to personnel, while leaving equipment, maintenance, training and other needs obscured in broad spending categories, former Nigerian Air Force spokesperson Sadeeq Shehu said. The figures expose a basic problem inside the state’s security apparatus: vast public allocations don’t clearly show what operational needs they’re meant to meet.

Who Gets the Money

Shehu, a retired group captain, said Nigeria’s security operations were weakened by poor planning and governance, not simply by inadequate funding. He made the assessment during an interview on ARISE News monitored by PREMIUM TIMES on Thursday, discussing federal special security interventions and defence allocations between 2023 and 2026.

His point wasn’t that the state should write a bigger cheque and call the job done. More military spending, he said, wouldn’t necessarily improve security unless officials addressed how resources were planned, allocated and used. “If you ask me, proportionate to what Nigeria is earning from its foreign trade and everything from petrol, I think we are spending right as far as amount is concerned. The problem is the plan and where do we put the money. The problem is also a governance issue,” he said.

The 2026 budget assigns about N297 billion, or 9.4 per cent, to overhead. Shehu questioned how the military could provide equipment, maintain existing platforms, train personnel and modernise operations when personnel costs consumed such a large share. “This is where the major problem is. And I do not see either the executive branch or even the legislature attacking this,” he said.

The Oversight Fog

The budget groups spending under personnel, overhead and capital, Shehu said, making it difficult to see how much goes to specific requirements such as equipment procurement, maintenance, training, military infrastructure and research. Those categories may fit neatly into a budget table. They don’t give the public—or, according to Shehu, even senior officials—a clear picture of what the military can actually do with the money.

“What global best practice has shown us is that the only thing that comes out from this budget is personnel cost. You will wonder, where is equipment? Where is maintenance? Where is training? A paltry less than 25 per cent is allocated to the two of them. This is not good enough,” he said.

Shehu warned that poor planning could leave essential requirements unfunded while scarce resources go to less critical areas. The people facing insurgency, banditry and other violent crime are left with security operations that, he said, aren’t translating spending into corresponding operational capacity.

The People at the Top, the Questions Left Open

Shehu also questioned whether the presidency and National Assembly could properly scrutinise defence spending without more detail. He said lawmakers and government officials needed a clearer understanding of military requirements so that allocations would reflect security priorities. The legislature and executive are the institutions with formal power over these decisions; his account suggests the existing budget structure leaves their oversight working with an incomplete picture.

“If you just leave it into these three, you know, three subheads, personnel, capital and overhead, you will never get the proper picture. And I can assure you from my research, the National Assembly and even the presidency, they do not have really a clear picture of what the defence budget is all about,” he said.

Shehu said more detailed budget categories could help identify operational gaps and direct money toward priority needs. His prescription is better planning and governance, not simply larger military allocations. The interview described no grassroots or community response to the budget; the decisions and scrutiny discussed remain concentrated in government offices, while the consequences play out amid violent crime.