In the digital age, data has become an increasingly significant component of modern governance. Policymakers and development agencies both see it as the fuel that powers transparency, efficiency, and decisions based on facts. Nigeria has not been excluded in this global data revolution.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) registers voters’ finger prints, the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) provides comprehensive audits, and the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) puts out statistical reports.
All of these groups collect a lot of data every year. These databases include everything from detailed information about poverty and unemployment to information about teacher absences, access to healthcare, and budget allocations. With help from international funders and digital governance programs, Nigeria’s data infrastructure seems like it may compete with that of many more industrialised countries.
But the paradox is still very clear. Even with all this information, Nigeria still has trouble with fundamental challenges with its government. Potholes still cover the roads, classrooms are full despite there are a lot of qualified instructors who are out of work, and healthcare institutions lack the drugs they need while procurement data goes wasted. The main problem is not that there isn’t any data; it is that there is not any action.
In a lot of circumstances, government agencies, consultants, and technocrats care more about gathering data than turning it into useful results. It is incorrect to believe that data can solve problems on its own. Data diagnoses the problem, but it does not implement the remedy. In Nigeria’s context, it has all too often served as a convenient shield against accountability: a museum of facts with no political curator.
At the heart of Nigeria’s reform inertia is not a lack of knowledge or technical capacity but a chronic deficit of political will. Since 2005, the NBS has issued over two dozen reports on poverty alone, each more urgent than the last. Until now, there has been no sustained, data-driven policy implementation to address the crisis.
In contrast, countries like Rwanda and India have demonstrated that when leadership is bold, data becomes transformative. Change is not the result of improved dashboards; it is the result of courageous leaders who are prepared to confront vested interests and address uncomfortable realities.
Nigeria will not be able to make significant progress by conducting additional performance audits and spreadsheets. Instead, the nation must cultivate a political culture that prioritises long-term consequences over short-term appearances and prioritises action over discourse. The country’s data revolution will continue to receive accolades from other nations if this change does not occur, but it will not make any progress domestically.
The promise of data: Tools that fail
In the past two decades, Nigeria has made significant strides in the development of a data ecosystem that is comparable to that of numerous middle-income countries. From large-scale national surveys to digital budget portals, the country is awash with statistical and financial information.
The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), once a quiet agency on the periphery of governance, now regularly releases detailed reports such as the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), the Nigeria Living Standards Survey (NLSS), and labour force statistics that dissect the nation’s socioeconomic realities. Other initiatives like the Open Treasury Portal provide real-time access to federal spending data, while tools like the Public Sector Performance Index (PSPI) promise to measure efficiency across ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs).
At the subnational level, states such as Edo, Kaduna, and Lagos have taken the lead in digitising public service delivery. Based on information gathered during the school census, modifications were made in Kaduna’s educational institutions.
On the other hand, the EDOBEST interface in Edo monitors attendance of teachers and student progress. Additionally, Lagos has implemented numerous systems to monitor traffic statistics, tax compliance, and attendance at primary care facilities. These investments create the impression that the government is current and makes decisions based on empirical evidence. However, the impacts of policy remain superficial and inconsistent, despite these technological advancements.
Statistics have the potential to transform the world when they are supported by political will, as evidenced by the comparisons between countries. The Aadhaar biometric identification system revolutionised the delivery of benefits in India. The government reduced the number of phantom beneficiaries by over 50% by associating benefits and subsidies with unique identification numbers.
This resulted in annual savings of billions of dollars. Rwanda, a nation that is still in the process of recovering from the genocide of the 1990s, has implemented real-time maternal health data to reduce maternal mortality by 60%. This remarkable reversal was facilitated by leaders who prioritised outcomes over reports. Open e-governance platforms have significantly enhanced trust in the government and reduced corruption, resulting in the digitalisation of nearly all government services in Estonia.
In contrast, Nigeria’s data narrative typically concludes with the collection phase. The Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) has consistently monitored the number of children who are not attending school. At present, it is estimated that the figure exceeds 20 million.
Conversely However, states frequently return billions of dollars in unused UBEC subsidies that were intended to improve access to education. Additionally, the annual NBS surveys indicate that over 40% of Nigerians are living in multidimensional poverty. However, there has been no coordinated national anti-poverty policy that incorporates this information. Despite the fact that polls have consistently demonstrated that it is both feasible and essential to extend health insurance coverage to all individuals, the country’s coverage rate remains below 10%.
The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) and the Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation are two organisations that periodically release audit reports that demonstrate significant amounts of money that have been either plundered or unaccounted for. These papers demonstrate that procurement fraud, duplicate contracts, and poor execution are common in critical sectors. However, in the majority of instances, there is no official follow-up or enforcement of the conclusions.
There are no financial issues, resignations, or arrests. The bad data quietly vanishes into archives or footnotes in donor assessments, and the public’s attention shifts to the next catastrophe. Documenting problems but rarely addressing them has perpetuated a cycle of impunity. The danger is not just in the theft or mismanagement itself but in the normalisation of inaction that follows.
The primary issue is not the lack of data. Nigeria’s statistical infrastructure is among the most robust in the region. The National Bureau of Statistics and other organisations consistently produce high-quality reports on a variety of subjects. The country’s progress in data collection and analysis has been commended by the World Bank and the IMF, among others.
However, the utility of data is contingent upon the actions it induces in individuals. According to certain researchers, Nigeria is currently experiencing a “data-to-decision gap,” in which there is a substantial quantity of evidence but minimal impact. Information is merely ornamentation that is beneficial for presentations but does not contribute to genuine governance outcomes in the absence of enforcement. Despite the fact that individuals compose policy documents and construct dashboards, there is little tangible progress.
Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala aptly described the concept: “Data is akin to a stethoscope: it indicates the issue but is incapable of resolving it.” The situation in Nigeria is accurately described by this comparison. The stethoscope is operational; it has identified enduring issues in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and corruption. However, the scalpel, which is a symbol of responsibility, reform, and action, is still not in use.
Individuals are hesitant to take action due to their lack of knowledge, fear of political repercussions, or desire to safeguard their own interests. In order to effect genuine change, it is imperative to not only acknowledge the deficiencies, but also to be prepared to confront them. It necessitates the implementation of difficult decisions, such as the elimination of waste, the pursuit of allies, or the restructuring of failing institutions.
The missing piece: Political will
In discussions regarding government, this omission is referred to as “political will.” It is the unseen yet indispensable force that converts diagnosis into treatment, reports into action, and policy into effect. Political will is the capacity of leaders to make difficult decisions that may not be popular but are beneficial to all.
Foreign partners are prohibited from distributing it, consultants are prohibited from outsourcing it, and the law alone cannot enforce it. It develops within the leaders themselves. In Nigeria, there is an increasing amount of policy evidence and competent technocrats; however, there is still a lack of political will. Without it, even the most robust data systems become ceremonial. Reform will perpetually cease to exist in the absence of leaders who are committed to its implementation.
The country does not suffer from a lack of data. It suffers from a courage deficit. As a senior policy advisor bluntly observed, “We don’t suffer from a data problem; we suffer from a courage problem.” The infrastructure for evidence-based decision-making has expanded steadily, terabytes of survey data, audit reports, and sectoral diagnostics now sit in digital archives across MDAs.
Nonetheless, reforms remain stunted. As one data activist pointed out, “The numbers tell the truth, but the truth often tells on those in power.” In essence, data is not the issue; what is missing is the political nerve to act on it. However, there are compelling examples that suggest what can transpire when political will and evidence are combined.
The most well-known example of a data-driven change that was implemented with political will is likely Kaduna State under Governor Nasir El-Rufai (2016–2020). The administration was faced with a difficult decision: either to appease a powerful union group or to save the failing education system, as a statewide test revealed that 66% of public school teachers failed fundamental competency tests.
The second alternative was selected by El-Rufai. In spite of legal threats, demonstrations, and a significant amount of political criticism, he terminated 22,000 instructors who were not performing their duties effectively. Simultaneously, the government initiated a concerted initiative to enhance the infrastructure of primary schools and recruit and train new instructors. The results were unambiguous: the number of individuals who were able to read and write increased by 20% after three years. It was a hazardous wager that proved profitable due to the political will to substantiate the data.
Another example is the Lagos State tax revolution, which occurred between 2005 and 2023 and involved multiple administrations. Approximately 10% of enterprises in the province were taxed prior to the modifications. The government of Lagos digitised collections, clamped down on tax evasion, and encouraged a greater number of individuals in the informal sector to pay taxes by collecting unambiguous compliance data.
The state also allocated a substantial quantity of resources to public campaigns that aimed to educate individuals on the impact of taxes on the delivery of services. What transpired? Internally generated revenue (IGR) increased from ₦20 billion in 2005 to over ₦570 billion by 2023. Lagos is currently the most financially autonomous subnational entity in Nigeria.
This is not due to the fact that it had superior data; rather, it is due to the political will to act on it..
Anambra State’s health sector reforms between 2020 and 2023 also offer a glimpse into the power of performance-driven leadership. The state launched a Health Facility Performance Improvement Initiative, linking Primary Health Centre (PHC) funding to real-time service delivery data—immunisation coverage, staff attendance, and maternal health outcomes.
Facilities that met targets received bonus allocations and recognition, while poorly performing centres faced administrative reviews. This alignment of incentives with performance data created a culture of accountability among frontline health workers. Though the reforms are still evolving, early indicators suggest improvements in service uptake and staff morale, an outcome made possible by leadership that chose to prioritise outcomes over optics.
However, these success stories serve as proof that without political will, even the most sophisticated data systems can become ineffective. The National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) is an illustration of an action that is inappropriate. The informal sector can be incorporated, and community-based insurance models are cost-effective, as demonstrated by over a decade of research. Nevertheless, less than 10% of Nigerians possess any form of health insurance (NBS, 2023).
The statistics are unequivocal: a significant number of Nigerians are compelled to spend a significant amount of money on health care, which frequently results in their poverty. In contrast, politicians have been unsuccessful in expanding the availability of coverage. What is the rationale? Changing the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) will present challenges for influential organisations that capitalise on the absence of transparency. In this instance, inertia is not associated with information; rather, it is associated with politics.
The issue of petrol subsidies may serve as an improved illustration. For more than a decade, audit reports from the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC), the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), and independent companies such as PwC have consistently demonstrated a significant amount of waste and leakage.
The NNPC data from 2019 to 2023 indicates that the subsidy system was ambiguous and resulted in a $10 billion annual waste. Nevertheless, the Tinubu administration cited “public sentiment” and “timing” as the grounds for postponing the termination of subsidies until 2024. At that time, the government was encountering financial difficulties that were causing it to struggle to pay for infrastructure, social services, and debt. Once more, the delay was not due to the ambiguity of the evidence; rather, it was due to the reluctance of politicians to take action.
This pattern persists, prompting critical enquiries: Why do Nigerian officials fail to act despite possessing the necessary information? This is due to the incentives that influence Nigeria’s political landscape. Short-term calculations typically prevail over long-term planning in the realm of politics. Numerous individuals believe that political reforms are perilous, particularly those that contradict the interests of influential individuals. Institutions lack the autonomy and stability necessary to implement transitions between administrations. Additionally, leaders may not be held accountable when the public is indifferent.
The Edo Basic Education Sector Transformation (EdoBEST) program presents a distinct narrative from the current state of affairs in numerous locations. EdoBEST was established in 2018 to demonstrate the potential for real improvements to education through the effective use of data and the involvement of local legislators. The program established a curriculum management system that was founded on analytics, developed tools for real-time classroom monitoring, and enabled teachers to sign in digitally.
EdoBEST implemented feedback systems that directly connected data to decision-making by providing tablets to over 10,000 teachers and placing school support officers in classrooms. Over the past three years, rural areas have experienced significant improvements in their fundamental reading and writing skills, as evidenced by independent tests. It is crucial to emphasise that the Edo State Government, rather than donors, was the primary driving force behind the reforms. This is a distinctive illustration of subnational ownership. This initiative demonstrates that data does not have to remain abstract; it can be utilised on a daily basis to enhance service delivery, provided that there is political will and the institutions have the necessary resources to maintain it.
Kaduna State has discreetly adopted a distinct perspective on the notion that data-driven governance is unattainable within Nigeria’s dysfunctional healthcare system. In order to monitor the performance of primary healthcare (PHC) facilities in each local government area, the state established community scorecards through the Health Accountability Mechanism. The state instructed individuals on how to utilise structured metrics to evaluate the quality of services, the availability of medications, and the presence of workers.
Subsequently, these concepts were amalgamated and implemented in discussions regarding budgeting and planning at the state and local levels. The data that was acquired was not merely stored; it was utilised to facilitate discussions regarding resource allocation and accountability, frequently resulting in expedited resolutions to issues.
Within two years of implementing the plan, certain primary health facilities experienced a 30% increase in the availability of medicines and the timeliness of their personnel. Kaduna demonstrated that bottom-up accountability systems can function effectively, even in a challenging federal environment, by connecting public opinions and data to state responses. This accomplishment necessitated no external assistance or new infrastructure. It was contingent upon the degree to which politicians were amenable to the concept of shared supervision and novel approaches to local government management.
However, there are some encouraging indicators in Nigeria’s reform environment that suggest a clear and optimistic course: when political will is supported by robust evidence, change is not only feasible, but also potentially transformative. Strong leadership and evidence can result in significant changes, even in the face of adversity, as evidenced by the education reforms of Kaduna and EdoBEST.
These examples demonstrate that data is not necessarily meaningless; its usefulness is contingent upon its intended context. Nigeria is currently in the process of preparing for the 2027 elections, developing its next national development plan, and addressing a restless, youthful populace that is eager for results. We are currently in need of a leader who is both principled and robust. The era of hollow promises and minor modifications has concluded. A political class that is unafraid to make difficult decisions based on actual facts is necessary in Nigeria.
The nation is no longer required to devise methods for acquiring additional information. Nigeria’s infrastructure comprises numerous dashboards, surveys, websites that advocate for transparency, and policy documents. What it should (or should not) do with all of this information is the subject of our discussion. People often fail to take decisive action, despite the existence of clear indications of poverty, gaps in education, and budget concerns.
Various governments frequently employ the same facts and figures in a variety of methods, such as in presentations, but they do not employ them to formulate policy. Leaders must immediately alter their thought processes, from the collection of data to its utilisation, and from their perspective on events to their final outcome. The cycle of data-rich dysfunction will persist if elections and appointments continue to prioritise discourse over action.
Operating a government is not a technological endeavour; it is a moral one. Data has the capacity to identify issues with remarkable precision; however, it is incapable of providing individuals with empathy, justice, or determination. It is incapable of eliminating elite capture or dismantling patronage systems. These decisions are predicated on politics rather than empirical evidence.
Data is intelligent and beneficial; however, it remains in its current location unless you possess the courage to relocate it. The significance of a leader’s dashboard is not determined by its presence; rather, it is determined by their ability to apply the information they possess to make difficult, even contentious, decisions. Data must transition from a performance-enhancing instrument to a tool for positive change in Nigeria and other fragile democracies. This necessitates more than just mathematical proficiency; it necessitates political fortitude.
WHY DOES POLITICAL WILL PREVAIL OVER DATA?
Data has become nearly legendary in the current state of the world. It is believed to be the foundation of responsible governance and accountability at international summits and donor conferences. Governments are establishing open-data portals and constructing digital infrastructure at a rapid pace due to their conviction that transparency will facilitate change.
Nigeria has rapidly adopted this global trend, allocating substantial resources to institutional performance scorecards, e-budgeting systems, and biometric audits. However, the country’s dilemma is unambiguous: the accumulation of more data has not resulted in increased development. Institutions’ lack of willingness to provide information is the issue, not a scarcity of information. Nigeria’s transformation will remain at the diagnosis stage unless leaders begin to acknowledge data as a necessity for change, rather than merely a cosmetic enhancement.
Data that is not enforced is merely ornamentation, regardless of its accuracy or timeliness. Dashboards do not pursue corrupt authorities. Phantom labourers are not eliminated by spreadsheets. Classrooms and roads are not repaired or constructed by PDF reports. The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) and the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation consistently identify significant issues in Nigeria, including fiscal leakages, contract inflation, and procurement fraud.
However, the system fails to address these issues. These audits are well-received by donors; however, politicians appear to disregard them. The primary issue is not a lack of evidence; rather, it is the absence of any repercussions. Data can indicate that an issue exists; however, if there is insufficient political and institutional authority to address it, the issue remains unchanged and is reported annually without any modifications.
One such example is the Public Sector Performance Index (PSPI), which was established in 2020 to evaluate the performance of ministries and agencies in relation to critical issues such as infrastructure, education, and health. Nevertheless, it does not significantly influence policy priorities or budgeting, despite the addition of detailed information. Ministry that perform poorly continue to receive funds that they do not merit, while ministries that perform well seldom receive incentives.
The PSPI, like numerous other reform instruments in Nigeria, suffers from a credibility gap. However, this is not due to its inadequate design; rather, its outcomes are seldom employed to inform decision-making. Performance reviews become a formality and transparency becomes a tick-box exercise that conceals inefficiency instead of resolving it when data is separated from discipline.
In order to alter this trend, Nigeria must equip its institutional watchdogs with the ability to act on the data they gather. The Auditor-General’s Office, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), State Houses of Assembly, and NEITI must be capable of operating independently and without political interference. The results can be easily disregarded or suppressed for political reasons if they neglect to take these precautions.
Changes may involve obligating the government to respond to significant audit findings within 90 days, granting NEITI the authority to report cases to prosecutors, and granting the Auditor-General the authority to issue binding directives. Incorporating civil society monitors into oversight processes and strengthening internal oversight units in MDAs could contribute to the establishment of a more permanent transparency. Data transitions from a passive instrument to a driver of change when it results in punishment or budgetary adjustments.
Ultimately, the establishment of a culture of responsibility that is founded on facts necessitates more than just dashboards and diagnostics. It also necessitates institutions that are courageous and have robust structures. Nigeria’s data ecosystem will not be evaluated by its quantity, frequency, or sophistication. Rather, they will evaluate it based on the extent to which it is beneficial.
Even the most sophisticated analytics are mere ceremonial exercises in the absence of robust enforcement and institutions that are immune to political interference. Reform should not be left to the discretion of the current leaders; it should be enshrined in legislation. It must be safeguarded by a robust political will and actively possessed by citizens through mechanisms for transparency, public feedback loops, and civic involvement.
These events are essential for Nigeria to transition from chronic documentation to sustainable change. In the absence of action, the nation may become ensnared in a plethora of facts that are never addressed, resulting in an abundance of statistics and surveys but little that is significant.
However, transitioning from data to reform is not always straightforward. Individuals are consistently apprehensive and resistant to change. It disrupts long-standing patronage networks, exposes inefficiencies that benefit powerful individuals, and casts a negative light on them. The most significant opposition in Nigeria’s intricate political economy is not a lack of knowledge, but rather knowledge that is frequently supported by compelling facts.
The gaps and shadowy systems that certain individuals depend on to obtain rent are revealed by data-driven reforms. The lack of political will to combat this resistance frequently results in the watering down, postponement, or cessation of reforms. A vision and measurable objectives are insufficient to effect genuine change. It is also necessary to have the courage to implement changes, even if they are politically controversial or costly. Therefore, the resolution of the discrepancy between Nigeria’s data and action is less dependent on technology and more on the possession of unwavering moral principles and the ability to confront institutional obstacles without fear.
I propose that we discuss the issue of phantom labour. Biometric verification has been implemented by numerous governments in order to streamline their payroll processes. Frequently, these audits uncover tens of thousands of fraudulent employees who are embezzling funds from the government. However, in numerous instances, these “ghosts” remain on the payroll for years, as their removal would result in high-ranking officials who placed their names on the list to receive money being penalised. The data is accessible; however, it necessitates the courage to confront influential individuals within the organisation.
This trend is evident in numerous sectors, but it is particularly evident in the procurement of government services. The system is quite inefficient, as evidenced by the numerous issues that have been disclosed by reform efforts, such as inflated contract amounts and duplicate bids. However, these novel facts rarely result in significant systemic changes. Procurement officers and contractors, who frequently possess political connections that provide them with protection, devise methods to circumvent accountability systems. Institutional inertia is employed by elites to maintain the status quo, despite the fact that data indicates wrongdoing.
Civil servants who endeavour to combat the corruption may incur subtle penalties, including being denied promotions, being excluded from their department, or being transferred to an entirely different position. Data becomes merely another useless report that is shared but disregarded and mentioned but not acknowledged in the absence of senior leaders who are willing to pay the political price for change. It is consistent with a prevalent trend in Nigerian politics: individuals are aware of the truth but fail to take action.
This inertia is exacerbated by the fact that individuals are unaware of it, and the evidence is employed in an unhelpful manner. Larry Diamond, a political economist, is renowned for his statement, “Authoritarianism endures not through ignorance, but through selective truth.” In Nigeria, suppression is more subtle; officials do not deny the existence of data; they simply decline to utilise it. Even worse, evidence is frequently employed to substantiate outcomes that have already been determined.
Rather than relying on evidence to inform their decisions, numerous ministries and agencies opt to selectively select data points to substantiate preexisting conclusions. This phenomenon, which some refer to as “policy-based evidence-making,” is in direct opposition to the fundamental principle of change, which is to enable facts to guide action. When data is employed to justify rather than elucidate, it ceases to function as a democratic instrument and becomes a method of control rather than change..
Take education as a case in point. Several state governments have come under scrutiny for underreporting WAEC failure rates or inflating school enrolment figures. The motive? To project success and retain public support, even if the reality paints a different picture. Instead of confronting the underlying issues, teacher absenteeism, poor funding, inadequate curriculum, some states cherry-pick favourable statistics to manufacture a false sense of progress.
This trend is far from unique to Nigeria, but reform-minded nations demonstrate a critical difference: they treat data as the backbone of governance, not as an accessory. In Singapore, for instance, data integrity is institutionalised, and ministers’ salaries, promotions, and political futures are tied to measurable outcomes such as GDP growth, school performance, and equity indicators. The political class is held directly accountable for results, not intentions. Likewise, Kenya has developed an open data scorecard system where county governors are publicly ranked based on service delivery metrics.
In this competitive framework, donor funds and federal grants are allocated based on transparent performance. Data, in these settings, is not merely collected—it is actively enforced and used to incentivise efficiency and penalise failure. These countries demonstrate that when political will aligns with institutional architecture, data can evolve from rhetoric into a powerful instrument of reform.
The mechanisms that hold these countries accountable are what distinguish them, not the advanced data technologies. Nigeria possesses the statistical infrastructure necessary to compete with countries in the Global South; however, the absence of penalties is its primary challenge. Reform in Chile, Estonia, and South Korea was not the result of donor-funded dashboards or technocratic ambition. It was the result of courageous leaders who were prepared to confront unpopular facts. The presidents and ministers of these countries were aware that the short-term suffering was a necessary cost of long-term change.
Their systems prioritised planning in advance over populism and evidence over expediency. Data has political implications due to the fact that leaders were held accountable and institutions were incentivised to do so. Even the most well-designed data platforms may become cosmetic rather than functional in the absence of these systems, as they may appear visually appealing but fail to fulfil any functional requirements.
In 2006, Chile implemented a significant education reform that resulted in significant student demonstrations advocating for equitable and free education. The government implemented performance data to allocate funds, terminate schools that were underperforming, and ensure that all educators were evaluated uniformly. Initially, there was a significant amount of resentment; however, student performance and graduation rates significantly improved over the course of five years. The leaders possessed the will, despite the fact that the facts pointed the way.
Estonia is frequently cited as a model for e-governance. It digitised over 99% of its public services, not due to superior technology, but rather due to the commitment of its leaders to digital trust and citizen engagement. Individuals can now access their health records, procurement contracts, and tax payments in real time. This was possible due to the willingness of legislators to forgo bureaucratic secrecy in favour of transparency.
The digital address system and biometric authentication for civil sector appointments in Ghana, implemented by former President John Mahama, disrupted long-standing systems of favouritism. The modifications were initially contentious; however, they improved Ghana’s fiscal credibility and increased its Ease of Doing Business rating. The trigger was not solely the availability of data; it was a political calculation that prioritised credibility over expediency.
Conversely, political leaders in Nigeria typically prioritise reform in the immediate future. The majority of governors, ministers, and heads of MDAs prioritise the preservation of their political capital over the assessment of their performance. Frequently, decisions are made without regard for evidence, as optics, tenure, and the satisfaction of the privileged are prioritised.
Professor Pat Utomi is renowned for his statement, “Nigeria’s leaders are not naive; they have valid reasons to disregard the data.” The abundant data ecosystem of Nigeria is unable to effect change as a result of the incorrect incentive structure. Until the structure is altered to ensure that political benefit is linked to measurable delivery rather than patronage, data will remain underutilised, trapped between dashboards and donor reports.
In order for data to be significant, it must be integrated into a government culture that prioritises honesty over convenience. Reform is not solely a technical objective; it is also a test of political daring. There is no way to download or coerce oneself into possessing fortitude; it must be developed. Nigeria’s future reform trajectory is contingent upon individuals who are willing to confront the criticism that accompanies the difficult decisions they must make, rather than on superior instruments. In terms of its finances, elections, and institutions, the nation is at a juncture. Its issue is not a dearth of information, but rather a lack of courage to act on it. Data should cease to be a topic of conversation and instead serve as a catalyst for action.
Towards a political culture based on data
Ultimately, Nigeria must modify its political incentives to ensure that the most critical factors in determining the legitimacy of an entity are truth, transparency, and evidence. This involves establishing a government in which the continuation of one’s tenure is contingent upon the actual outcomes of reforms, rather than on the use of grandiose rhetoric or media spin. Institutions, civic society, and individuals must collaborate to demand more than mere assurances.
They must demand outcomes, employing data as the benchmark. In the absence of this realignment, even the most dependable and transparent datasets could be employed to regulate the elite rather than assist the populace. In order to terminate the cycle of unacted evidence, Nigeria must cease data collection and commence its utilisation. History has consistently demonstrated that the size of a country’s database is not a determining factor in its development; rather, it is contingent upon the extent to which the country desires to govern differently.
Establishing a legal requirement for individuals to promptly respond to official data outputs is an effective method of fostering accountability. For instance, the federal or state governments should be legally mandated to disclose their action plans within 90 days of the publication of significant findings from organisations such as the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) or the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI). Development partners and multilateral lenders must surpass the mere provision of capacity-building seminars.
They must begin to condition financial assistance on their ability to respond to data. Politicians would be obligated to regard data as a political lifeline, rather than merely an extra, if the World Bank or the federal government were to only provide funding to countries that could demonstrate that they were making positive changes, such as enhancing maternal health, collecting taxes, or feeding children in school.
Performance scorecards have the potential to further alter the public’s perception of the situation by assigning grades to governors, ministers, and local government chairpersons based on the effectiveness of their reform implementation. These scorecards can foster healthy rivalry, cause individuals who are behind to feel remorseful, and provide high achievers with both financial rewards and public trust when implemented correctly.
However, no incentive system will be effective unless individuals are able to comprehend the data that is available and hold individuals accountable for it. This is the point at which community organisations, civil society organisations, and tech innovators must intervene. BudgIT and Tracka are two platforms that have already demonstrated the potential for community-led action by facilitating the visibility of budget information and project progress.
These platforms have empowered ordinary citizens in states such as Enugu and Niger to demand that schools and institutions that have been left incomplete be completed. The #DataOrResign campaigns provide an additional perspective on the potential of data-activated citizenship by establishing audit reports as a platform for citizens to hold the government accountable.
Additionally, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act has been invoked in litigation to compel government ministries, departments, and agencies to disclose records that they had previously maintained as confidential. This is an extremely significant message: data is no longer exclusively available to the wealthy and influential. It is a tool that is accessible to all, and when utilised collectively, it can motivate even the most enigmatic politician to take action.
However, in order for this cultural transformation to occur, there must be a significant shift in the manner in which individuals discuss data in politics. Far too frequently, data is depicted as a technocratic abstraction, relegated to the domain of IT experts, consultants, or statisticians. This framing diminishes its democratic significance. It is imperative that leaders cease viewing data as merely numerical information and instead recognise it as a source of moral and political value.
It is not political suicide to assert that schools are not functioning optimally or that health facilities lack sufficient funding. It is a candid assessment of the situation that facilitates the possibility of change. For instance, Chile and Estonia have constructed their entire reform strategies on this line of reasoning. Presently, their populace perceives transparency as indicative of effective leadership, rather than failure.
Nigeria must provide training to a new generation of public officials and political leaders to enable them to perceive data as a strategic management instrument. This is of paramount importance. This has already been demonstrated in leadership development programs such as the Aig-Imoukhuede Public Leaders Programme (AIG PLP). In addition to learning how to design policies, participants also acquire the skills necessary to address opposition, establish consensus, and implement evidence.
If this training were administered to a significant number of individuals in the public service, particularly in MDAs that are responsible for social policy, budgeting, and procurement, it could potentially generate a group of administrators who are motivated to effect change from within. Similarly, the cultural foundation for enduring change could be established by introducing this perspective to individuals at an early age, such as through governance courses in public administration institutions and onboarding training for political appointees.
The transition to a data-driven political culture in Nigeria will not be a rapid or straightforward process. It will require the dismantling of antiquated patterns of denial, distortion, and deflection. However, it is an excursion that is worthwhile. The alternative scenario is a future in which Nigeria continues to accumulate information, but the situation continues to deteriorate. If it is political will that is lacking, the construction of it must be a national endeavour that is undertaken by all individuals who are determined to prevent the silence of evidence, not just reformers and activists.
Ultimately, failing to act on data is not only a squandered opportunity, but also a betrayal of public confidence. It is detrimental to the millions of young individuals who are confronted with an economy that guarantees diplomas but not employment, the mothers who are denied access to clinics that lack sufficient supplies, and the educators whose classrooms remain overcrowded. Every datum that has not been addressed indicates a life that was prematurely terminated or a right that was postponed.
However, data becomes more than mere numbers when brave leadership and a defined objective are incorporated. It serves as a blueprint for the transformation of Nigeria into the nation that its citizens desire and deserve, as well as a resource for ensuring that individuals are held accountable. The issue is not a lack of knowledge; rather, it is a lack of follow-through.
The issue with Nigeria’s reform is not that the populace lacks knowledge; rather, it is that they are unwilling to take action. The nation boasts some of the most sophisticated data systems in sub-Saharan Africa. The following are included: national household surveys, biometric voter registries, budgetary dashboards, and education performance monitors.
These instruments have repeatedly demonstrated the deficiencies of governance and have identified solutions. However, this abundance of evidence is frequently relegated to neglected archives or PowerPoint presentations that fail to garner any attention. Important information that has the potential to improve the lives of individuals is transformed into bureaucratic tasks and responsibilities for donors. It is not that individuals lack the ability to identify the issue; rather, they lack the courage to propose a solution and implement it.
While big data is crucial, it is incapable of resolving a governance system that is fundamentally flawed. Ghost labourers are not disregarded by dashboards. Health clinics are not constructed by spreadsheets. The gap between diagnosis and delivery can only be bridged by strong leadership that is founded on honesty and the public welfare. However, there is still a significant dearth of this type of leadership.
Technocrats are capable of devising reforms; however, they are incapable of implementing them without political resolve. It is not always the case that individuals in positions of authority make the difficult decisions necessary to disrupt entrenched interests. However, genuine change can occur when reformers muster the courage to take action, despite the opposition they face. It is not the quantity of data that Nigeria collects that will determine its governance reform; rather, it is the extent to which it is willing to act on it.
Nigeria’s development narrative is replete with contradictions, akin to a nation that accumulates an abundance of data but fails to implement it effectively. Data-driven governance is impossible until our political leaders perceive facts as an opportunity to effect change rather than a threat to their authority. However, there is a possibility. We can observe the consequences of the intersection of capacity and bravery in various sectors and nations. This is the point at which governors, ministers, and civic leaders employ data to make decisions and effect genuine change.
These examples should no longer be the exception; they should be the standard.
If Nigeria is to rewrite its reform narrative, it must stop treating data as a destination and start treating it as a launchpad. The future of this country does not rest in more reports or better statistics, but in the moral clarity and political daring to act on what we already know. Until then, governance will remain a well-documented disaster. But the day our leaders trade silence for sincerity and convenience for courage, reform will not just be possible—it will be unstoppable.
Oluremi Morakinyo Alao can be reached via:
Email: [email protected]
Tell. +2348067915057