₦3.05bn NALDA Projects: Where Are the Projects? CSO Demands EFCC, ICPC Probe
Investigators urged to trace project locations, contractors, payments and beneficiaries as questions mount over the verifiability of federal agricultural allocations
By The Analyst Investigative Desk
Billions of naira allocated to agricultural land-development projects under the National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) are facing fresh scrutiny after a civil society organisation raised questions over the absence of sufficiently clear information identifying where some of the projects are located.
The organisation has called on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to independently examine the projects, including their locations, procurement records, contractors, payments, implementation status and intended beneficiaries.
The concerns centre on projects with a reported combined allocation of ₦3.05 billion, amid questions over whether members of the public and oversight institutions can independently verify what the funds were intended to deliver.
The issue assumes particular significance because agricultural land-development and bush-clearing projects are physically verifiable interventions. Unlike less tangible government programmes, they should ordinarily leave identifiable footprints—specific locations, hectares covered, contractors, communities and beneficiaries.
The fundamental question is therefore simple: where are the projects?
THE ₦3.05BN QUESTION
ACCOUNTABILITY MARKER
WHAT NEEDS VERIFICATION
₦3.05bn
Reported value of projects under scrutiny
Project locations
States, LGAs and communities
Land development
Number of hectares covered
Procurement
Contractors and award process
Payments
Amounts released and beneficiaries
Implementation
Physical evidence and completion status
Beneficiaries
Farmers and communities targeted
An earlier ₦2 billion land and bush-clearing allocation under the Presidency, overseen by NALDA and identified by project code ERGP1224383, had already attracted criticism from MonITNG over the absence of a specified project location.
In September 2025, The Guardian reported that the organisation questioned how citizens and oversight bodies could track the project without information identifying the site, the farms to be cleared, the number of hectares involved or the communities expected to benefit. The organisation subsequently called for scrutiny by the National Assembly, EFCC and ICPC.
A PROJECT WITHOUT A LOCATION?
For investigators, the location question is more than a bureaucratic detail.
If public funds are allocated for land clearing or agricultural development, an independent monitor should be able to determine where the intervention took place, the size of the land involved and what work was actually performed.
Without that information, several basic verification exercises become difficult.
Was the project executed?
Was the approved amount fully spent?
Was the work awarded through a competitive procurement process?
Did the contractor complete the approved scope?
Did the stated beneficiaries receive the intended intervention?
And, critically, can the physical project be located and independently inspected?
These questions do not amount to an allegation of fraud. They are the basic accountability questions that arise whenever significant public expenditure cannot easily be tied to a clearly identifiable physical outcome.
THE INVESTIGATIVE TRAIL
A credible investigation by the relevant authorities could follow the money from appropriation to implementation.
Investigators would need to examine:
1. Budget records — What exactly was approved and under which project codes?
2. Project documentation — Where were the projects supposed to be located?
3. Procurement records — Who won the contracts and through what process?
4. Payment records — How much was released, when and to whom?
5. Physical verification — Do the projects exist at the stated locations?
6. Scope of work — Does the work on the ground correspond with the approved specifications?
7. Beneficiary records — Which farmers and communities were intended to benefit?
8. Completion documentation — Are there certificates, valuation reports, photographs, inspection reports or other evidence confirming delivery?
WHY ICPC AND EFCC MATTER
The ICPC has previously undertaken project-tracking exercises involving federal projects running into hundreds of billions of naira, demonstrating the importance of physical verification and compliance monitoring in public expenditure.
The EFCC, meanwhile, has a mandate to investigate financial crimes where evidence points to potential violations.
In the present case, the appropriate starting point is therefore not an assumption of wrongdoing, but documentary and physical verification.
If the projects exist and were properly executed, detailed records and site inspections should help establish that.
If there are discrepancies between approved projects, payments and physical delivery, those discrepancies should equally become part of the official record.
NALDA'S RESPONSE WILL BE CRITICAL
NALDA's response could provide important context to the controversy.
The authority can potentially clarify the exact locations of the projects, the areas covered, contractors engaged, implementation timelines, funds released and the beneficiaries targeted.
Publishing such information would also enable journalists, civil society organisations and citizens to independently assess the projects rather than relying solely on budget descriptions.
For an agency involved in agricultural land development, geographical specificity is central to accountability.
KEY QUESTIONS
WHERE exactly are the ₦3.05bn projects?
HOW many hectares of land were approved for development or clearing?
WHICH states, LGAs and communities were selected?
WHO received the contracts?
HOW were the contractors selected?
HOW MUCH has actually been paid?
WHAT evidence exists that the work was completed?
WHO are the intended beneficiaries?
CAN independent investigators physically verify the projects?
WERE the projects included in the approved budget as originally proposed, or were they subsequently altered?
WHAT oversight mechanism is currently monitoring implementation?
THE EVIDENCE TEST
The distinction between insufficient disclosure and proven wrongdoing is important.
A project description that does not clearly identify a location does not, on its own, establish corruption, diversion or non-execution.
But where billions of naira of public money are involved, insufficiently specific project information creates a legitimate accountability gap.
The appropriate response is therefore verification.
If the projects exist, show the locations. If contracts were awarded, publish the records. If payments were made, establish the payment trail. If work was completed, demonstrate it physically.
That is the evidence trail Nigerians need to see.
For The Analyst Online Media, the central issue is not whether the projects should exist—it is whether ₦3.05 billion in public expenditure can be traced from the budget document to a clearly identifiable agricultural outcome on the ground.
Until that question is answered with verifiable evidence, scrutiny of the projects remains justified.
**The Analyst Online Media will continue to follow the documentary, procurement and implementation trail surrounding the projects and report verified responses from NALDA, the relevant oversight bodies and other responsible authorities.**