When I first learned that the Federal Ministry of Solid Minerals Development received zero capital allocation for 2025, I was stunned. N865.06 billion was earmarked for capital expenditure, yet not a naira was released. Half of the overhead budget remained unpaid as of January 31, 2026. This is not just an administrative lapse. In my view, it is a serious structural failure that threatens Nigeria’s economic diversification agenda and undermines the very ministries tasked with driving growth.
I have followed the developments closely. Honourable Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dr. Dele Alake, told lawmakers that the lack of guaranteed funding has stalled critical infrastructure, exploration, and sector development projects. From my perspective, this is not acceptable. If Nigeria is serious about reducing its dependence on oil revenue, the solid minerals sector cannot operate under perpetual uncertainty. Mining has the potential to generate jobs, boost foreign exchange, and drive GDP growth. Without predictable funding, all of this remains potential, not reality.
I support the proposal to grant first-line charge status to the solid minerals ministry. This fiscal mechanism ensures statutory allocations are automatically released from the Federation Account. I see it as essential. Ministries cannot execute multi-year projects, attract serious investment, or scale operations if their budgets are uncertain. As I see it, first-line charge is not a favor. It is a necessity for any sector that is expected to deliver transformative outcomes.
What strikes me as most frustrating is the contrast between what the ministry has achieved and the resources it was given. Despite zero capital releases, the ministry exceeded its 2025 revenue target by 80 percent, generating N30.23 billion. I find this remarkable. They formalized artisanal miners into cooperatives, established mineral buying centers, reclaimed high-risk abandoned mine sites, and expanded digitized enterprise management systems. These efforts placed Nigeria on the global mining map and drew investor interest at the African Mining Conference in Cape Town.
Yet I cannot ignore the opportunity cost. Imagine what could have been achieved with even partial capital disbursement. Infrastructure could have been developed, exploration expanded, and operations modernized. The revenue potential is enormous, yet it is being stifled by bureaucracy and delayed releases. In my opinion, it is unconscionable for the government to underfund a sector that has already proven its capacity to deliver.
I see this problem extend far beyond solid minerals. Ministries across the board are facing similar challenges. The Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Development, for example, had to appeal for upward review of its 2026 allocation after abysmal 2025 releases. I cannot accept the notion that a ministry’s ability to deliver on national priorities should be contingent on inconsistent funding. This is a systemic problem. It shows a disconnect between the government’s ambitions and its commitment to backing those ambitions with cash.
From where I stand, predictable funding is more than a bureaucratic convenience. It is a prerequisite for execution, accountability, and investor confidence. Ministries must be empowered to turn appropriations into results. Without this, policies remain plans on paper, strategies remain aspirational, and budgets become irrelevant. I believe first-line charge status is a step in the right direction, but it must be part of a broader reform that addresses these structural weaknesses across government.
I also consider the message that zero-capital allocation sends to investors. If Nigeria cannot guarantee funding for a sector with proven potential, how can it expect the private sector to commit resources? The lack of predictable funding undermines confidence and diminishes the country’s competitiveness. I cannot overstate this: in a global economy, credibility is currency. Nigeria risks losing out to countries that provide certainty, structure, and commitment.
I am convinced that granting first-line charge status would have immediate and far-reaching benefits. Ministries could plan multi-year projects, attract private investment, and forge public-private partnerships. Execution would replace excuses, and results would replace rhetoric. I see this as critical, not optional. Ministries must be allowed to execute their mandates, not manage crises created by the very structures meant to support them.
In my opinion, the zero-capital release of 2025 is a warning that policy without funding is meaningless. Even with the remarkable achievements of the solid minerals ministry under severe constraints, the gains risk being wasted without consistent support. I see every stalled project as a missed opportunity for jobs, revenue, and industrialization. Predictable funding is the minimum requirement for converting potential into production.
I believe the Federal Government must act decisively. Legislative backing for first-line charge status should be complemented by a structural review of disbursement processes across all ministries. I would urge that ministries be empowered to execute projects efficiently and deliver measurable results. Anything less risks perpetuating a cycle of stalled initiatives, unfulfilled promises, and lost economic opportunities.
I also see predictable funding as a political signal. It tells the private sector and international investors that Nigeria is serious about diversifying its economy. It signals commitment to sectors beyond oil. I would argue that the solid minerals sector is a test case. If funding reforms succeed here, they can, and should, be extended to other ministries facing similar challenges.
From my perspective, the economic implications are clear. Solid minerals could create jobs, generate revenue, and strengthen local industries. Underfunding the sector delays industrialization, slows GDP growth, and undermines national competitiveness. I cannot accept a status quo where enthusiasm and potential are relied upon instead of action and resources. Execution requires money, and money requires structural reforms that guarantee allocations.
I also consider the broader benefits. Predictable funding reduces inefficiency, strengthens accountability, and encourages private sector participation. Ministries with guaranteed allocations can plan multi-year projects, attract investment, and build capacity. I see the cost of inaction as far greater than the cost of reform: stalled projects, lost revenue, and eroded trust in government.
I have spoken with industry insiders who consistently highlight one barrier above all: lack of guaranteed funding. Policies may be visionary, reforms may be bold, but without money, ministries cannot execute. I see the 2025 achievements of the solid minerals ministry as proof of what is possible, but also as a stark warning of what is lost when funding fails to follow plans.
Ultimately, I cannot accept that Nigeria treats economic diversification as optional. The zero-capital release is a direct impediment to national prosperity. The government must act decisively, legislating structural reforms that guarantee funding for ministries with critical mandates. I would start with solid minerals and extend the same approach wherever underfunding threatens development. Doing so would restore confidence, empower ministries, and signal to the world that Nigeria is serious about sustainable economic growth.
From my perspective, execution is the true measure of governance. Appropriations without disbursement, strategies without funding, and policies without execution represent lost opportunities. Nigeria’s future depends on turning plans into production, potential into profits, and budgets into action. Ministries must be resourced to deliver. Anything less is postponing prosperity at the nation’s expense.
I am convinced that predictable funding must become the norm. Zero capital releases cannot continue. The National Assembly’s consideration of first-line charge status is a positive step, but it must catalyze broader reforms. Ministries must be enabled to execute, deliver, and generate results. Only then can Nigeria convert opportunity into outcomes and vision into reality.
I have no doubt that Nigeria’s economic potential is enormous. But opportunity alone does not create growth. Action does. Ministries must be funded to turn plans into tangible results. The time to act is now. Anything short of structural funding reform risks leaving Nigeria’s mineral wealth, industrial prospects, and broader development goals untapped while other nations advance.
In my opinion, the Federal Government must prioritize predictable funding, reform disbursement processes, and empower ministries to deliver. The country cannot afford zero capital, zero progress, and zero accountability. The time for decisive action is not tomorrow. It is today.
