By Chibuike Njoku & Ndu Nwokolo
Nigeria is confronting one of the most challenging security environments in its contemporary history. The country continues to battle multiple and overlapping threats, including the Boko Haram insurgency and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) in the North-East, banditry and mass kidnappings in the North-West, farmer-herder violence in the Middle Belt, separatist unrest in the South-East, and oil-related criminality in the Niger Delta. According to Nextier’s Nigeria Violent Conflicts Database (NNVCD), Nigeria recorded 1,274 violent incidents in 2025, resulting in 4,654 fatalities and 3,141 kidnap victims. These trends highlight the persistent and evolving nature of insecurity despite extensive government interventions.
In response, successive governments have significantly increased the defence budget. The Federal Government allocated approximately ₦3.154 trillion for the Ministry of Defence in the 2026 Appropriation Bill, making it one of the largest recipients of public expenditure. This substantial allocation reflects not only Nigeria’s external defence requirements but also the increasing deployment of the military to address internal security challenges traditionally associated with policing and law enforcement.
The growing involvement of the military in counterterrorism, counter-banditry, anti-kidnapping operations, and other internal security missions has elevated the strategic importance of defence procurement. Military equipment, logistics, intelligence systems, surveillance technologies, and troop protection mechanisms now play a direct role in addressing threats that affect the daily security of Nigerian citizens. Consequently, ensuring that defence resources are efficiently and transparently managed has become a matter of national importance.
Yet, despite rising defence allocations, insecurity persists across many parts of the country. A major explanation lies in longstanding concerns about corruption and weak accountability in military procurement. Public investigations have exposed allegations of contract inflation, diversion of procurement funds, opaque contracting processes, and the acquisition of substandard or undelivered equipment. The most notable example remains the $2.1 billion arms procurement scandal, popularly known as “Dasukigate,” which revealed how funds intended to strengthen the military’s counterinsurgency capacity were allegedly diverted through politically connected networks.
The consequences extend far beyond financial losses. When procurement systems fail, military readiness is weakened, operational effectiveness declines, troop morale suffers, and civilians become more vulnerable to insecurity. Every delayed, inflated, or diverted defence contract potentially translates into reduced battlefield capability and diminished public safety.
This Nextier SPD Policy report argues that military procurement should be treated as a distinct governance and national security issue requiring dedicated oversight. While legitimate security concerns may necessitate someconfidentiality, excessive secrecy and weak accountability mechanisms create opportunities for corruption and inefficiency. Keeping a close tab on military procurement is therefore essential not only for safeguarding public resources but also for ensuring that defence spending translates into improved security outcomes. The central question guiding this policy brief is: How can Nigeria strengthen accountability and transparency in military procurement while preserving legitimate national security interests?
Why Military Procurement Remains Vulnerable in Nigeria
Military procurement is one of the most sensitive and high-risk areas of public expenditure because it combines large financial allocations, technical complexity, and extensive secrecy. As Nigeria increasingly relies on the military to combat insurgency, banditry, kidnapping, and other internal security threats, ensuring the integrity of defence procurement has become a national security imperative. However, despite repeated reforms, military procurement remains vulnerable to corruption, inefficiency, and weak accountability, limiting the effectiveness of defence spending.
A major source of vulnerability is the extensive use of secrecy in defence acquisitions. National security considerations often exempt military procurement from the transparency standards applied to other public contracts. While confidentiality may be necessary to protect operational information, the broad application of secrecy frequently shields procurement decisions from meaningful scrutiny. Legislative bodies, audit institutions, civil society organizations, and the media often have limited access to information relating to weapons systems, logistics platforms, surveillance technologies, and defence infrastructure. Consequently, opportunities for oversight are constrained, increasing the risk of abuse.
The technical complexity of military procurement further compounds this challenge. Defence contracts often involve specialized equipment and technologies that require expertise in strategy, engineering, logistics, and financial management. This information asymmetry makes it difficult for oversight institutions to independently assess whether acquisitions are necessary, appropriately priced, or represent value for money. The result is a procurement environment susceptible to contract inflation, sole-source contracting abuses, overpricing, and the acquisition of substandard equipment.
Nigeria’s experience provides clear evidence of these vulnerabilities. The most prominent example is the $2.1 billion arms procurement scandal, popularly known as “Dasukigate,” which exposed how funds intended for military equipment during the Boko Haram insurgency were allegedly diverted through politically connected networks. At a time when troops were engaged in intensive counterinsurgency operations, reports highlighted shortages of weapons, protective gear, and logistical support despite substantial defence allocations. This case illustrates how procurement corruption translates directly into operational weaknesses on the battlefield.
Weak oversight mechanisms have further exacerbated these challenges. Although institutions such as the National Assembly, the Bureau of Public Procurement, the Office of the Auditor-General, and anti-corruption agencies possess oversight mandates, their effectiveness is often constrained by political interference, restricted access to classified information, fragmented responsibilities, and weak enforcement powers. Consequently, accountability frequently occurs only after major scandals emerge rather than through proactive monitoring and prevention.
Beyond corruption, military procurement also suffers from broader institutional weaknesses, including poor procurement planning, inadequate technical expertise, weak contract management systems, and limited monitoring and evaluation capacity. These governance deficits contribute to project delays, cost overruns, and inefficient resource utilization. As a result, procurement vulnerability in Nigeria is not solely a corruption problem but also a capacity and institutional performance challenge.
Collectively, excessive secrecy, procurement corruption, weak oversight, and institutional capacity deficits have created a procurement system that remains vulnerable to abuse and inefficiency. Every inflated contract, diverted funds, or undelivered equipment purchase weakens military readiness, undermines operational effectiveness, and increases the risk to both security personnel and civilians.
Recommendations
Strengthening military procurement governance in Nigeria requires reforms that enhance accountability without compromising legitimate national security concerns. The following recommendations are proposed:
i. Establish a Defence Procurement Transparency Framework: The Federal Government should develop a dedicated defence procurement framework that clearly defines the limits of procurement secrecy, specifies categories of classified information, and mandates periodic disclosure of non-sensitive procurement data, including contract awards, expenditure summaries, and implementation status.
ii. Institutionalize Independent Defence Audits: Regular independent audits of defence procurement should be mandated and conducted by authorized oversight bodies with the requisite security clearance. Audit findings should be submitted to the National Assembly and relevant accountability institutions for review and action.
iii. Strengthen Legislative Oversight: The National Assembly should undertake annual reviews of defenceprocurement performance, focusing on contract execution, value-for-money assessments, budget compliance, and operational outcomes. Oversight committees should be equipped with the technical expertise required to scrutinize complex defence acquisitions.
iv. Develop Specialized Defence Procurement Guidelines: The Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) should establish sector-specific guidelines for military procurement that promote competitive processes, transparency safeguards, risk management, and accountability while accommodating legitimate security requirements.
v. Enhance Anti-Corruption Monitoring and Enforcement: The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) should create dedicated defence procurement monitoring units to investigate procurement fraud, contract manipulation, illicit financial flows, and abuse of procurement exemptions.
vi. Strengthen Asset Recovery and Sanctions Regimes: The Government should prioritize tracing, seizing, and recovering assets linked to defence procurement fraud. Swift prosecution and meaningful sanctions for offenders should be pursued to deter future abuses and reinforce accountability.
vii. Improve Contract Management and Internal Compliance: The Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces should strengthen contract management systems through robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, performance-based contract reviews, and stricter supplier accountability measures. Internal audit and compliance units should be adequately funded, professionally staffed, and granted operational independence to detect and prevent procurement irregularities.
Nigeria’s persistent insecurity demonstrates that increased defence spending alone cannot guarantee improved security outcomes. Over the years, successive governments have allocated substantial resources to the armed forces in response to insurgency, banditry, kidnapping, and other emerging threats. Yet, the persistence of these challenges suggests that the central issue is not merely the amount spent on defence, but how effectively those resources are managed, monitored, and translated into operational capability.
This policy brief shows that military procurement remains one of the most critical vulnerabilities in Nigeria’s defencearchitecture. Excessive secrecy, procurement corruption, weak oversight mechanisms, and institutional capacity deficits have created conditions in which defence resources can be diverted, mismanaged, or inefficiently utilized. The consequences extend far beyond financial losses. Procurement failures undermine troop readiness, delay the delivery of critical equipment, weaken operational effectiveness, and reduce the armed forces’ capacityto respond to evolving security threats. In a country where the military increasingly performs internal security functions traditionally associated with law enforcement, weaknesses in procurement governance have direct implications for national stability and civilian protection.
The experience of major procurement scandals, particularly during periods of intense counterinsurgency operations, highlights how corruption and inefficiency within defenceacquisitions can become force multipliers for insecurity. Every inflated contract, undelivered equipment package, or diverted procurement fund represents not only a governance failure but also a potential threat to the lives of soldiers and civilians. Consequently, military procurement should not be viewed solely as an administrative or budgetary matter; it is a strategic national security issue that directly affects the effectiveness of the state’s security response.
Strengthening military procurement governance, therefore,requires a careful balance between protecting legitimate national security interests and ensuring transparency, accountability, and oversight. Reforms aimed at improving procurement integrity, enhancing institutional monitoring, professionalizing procurement management, and strengthening legislative and audit oversight will help ensure that defence spending delivers measurable security outcomes. Ultimately, Nigeria’s security challenges will not be resolved by spending more on defencealone. Sustainable security depends on ensuring that every naira allocated to military procurement is effectively converted into operational capability, public value, and enhanced national security.
(Dr. Chibuike Njoku is an Associate Consultant at Nextier, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Ile-Ife, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Institut Français de Recherche en Afrique (IFRA-Nigeria); while Dr. Ndu Nwokolo is a Managing Partner at Nextier and a Reader (Associate Professor) at the Institute for Peace, Security and Development Studies, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria)
