Every senator and member of the House of Representatives who voted to create regional ‘development’ commissions in Nigeria claim it is a game-changer that will radically transform the concerned geopolitical zones. However, this assertion is misleading; instead, these commissions represent another unaccountable federal agency that risks squandering public funds while doing little to support genuine regional development.
Similarly, every president who signs into law a bill to establish a regional ‘development’ commission contributes to another opportunity for patronage politics, corruption, and abuse of entrusted power. Despite this, the proliferation of these commissions continues unabated in Nigeria. Currently, the development commissions for four of Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones have been established by law, while the bills for the remaining two are either nearing completion in the National Assembly or awaiting presidential approval.
Globally, the proven method for promoting regional development involves devolving powers to the regions through democratic, transparent, and accountable regional governments. The notion that a federal agency can replace a regional government undermines the very essence of true regionalism, which fundamentally supports regional autonomy. However, proponents of regional ‘development’ commissions in Nigeria argue that these agencies will address the developmental challenges facing the regions. In contrast, evidence from long-established regional commissions suggests they primarily function as extractive institutions designed to benefit a small elite rather than advance genuine regional development, regardless of their stated mandates.
The existing regional ‘development’ commissions—namely, the Niger-Delta Development Commission, North-East Development Commission, North-West Development Commission, and South-East Development Commission—exhibit strikingly similar functions. Each commission is mandated to “conceive, conceptualize, plan, and implement projects and programmes for sustainable development” in its respective region. They are also charged with identifying factors inhibiting regional development and assisting member states in formulating and implementing policies for effective resource management.
The establishment of these commissions tacitly acknowledges the necessity of regionalism in Nigeria. It reflects an acceptance of the economic principle of agglomeration, which posits that contiguous states are more viable when pooling resources to achieve economies of scale rather than operating independently. While this agglomeration aligns with the intended functions of the regional development commissions, the reality is that these bodies have fallen short of their goals and have failed to foster true regional development.
Thus, while the regional ‘development’ commissions may present themselves as solutions to developmental challenges, their actual impact is often limited, and their operations are marred by the same issues of inefficiency and corruption that plague many government agencies in Nigeria. True progress in regional development will require a rethinking of how governance is structured, prioritizing genuine autonomy and accountability over bureaucratic expansion.
