The Foreign Aid (Regulation, Transparency and Disclosure) Bill, 2026 has reignited an important conversation about accountability, transparency, and civic space in Nigeria. Much of the public debate has focused on whether the Bill represents a legitimate attempt to improve oversight of foreign assistance or an indirect effort to expand state control over civil society organisations and externally funded interventions. While these concerns are understandable, they risk reducing a complex governance issue to a binary choice between support and opposition. The more important question is whether the Bill correctly identifies the problem it seeks to solve and whether the institutional response it proposes is necessary, proportionate, and likely to improve development governance.
At its core, the Bill appears to be responding to a set of genuine concerns. These include limited visibility over foreign aid flows, weak coordination among implementing actors, duplication of donor-funded interventions, fragmented reporting systems, concerns about accountability, and the need to align externally funded activities with national development priorities. The Bill proposes to address these concerns through the establishment of a Foreign Aid Regulatory Commission (FARC) with powers to register recipients of foreign aid, maintain a national database of aid flows, monitor utilisation, conduct inspections, enforce disclosure requirements, and impose sanctions for non-compliance.
Few would disagree with the objectives. Transparency is a good governance principle. Accountability is a good governance principle. Effective coordination improves development outcomes. Every sovereign state has a legitimate interest in knowing what resources enter its territory, who receives them, how they are utilised, and whether they contribute to national priorities. The challenge, therefore, is not whether transparency and accountability matter. The challenge is determining whether the problems identified by the Bill arise from inadequate regulation or from weaknesses in implementation, coordination, information management, and institutional performance.
This distinction is more than a technical matter. It goes to the heart of effective public policy. Different problems require different solutions. If the challenge is limited visibility into aid flows, stronger information systems and disclosure mechanisms may be required. If the challenge is project duplication, better coordination and planning arrangements may be necessary. If the challenge is weak accountability, existing oversight institutions may need strengthening. However, if the challenge is fundamentally one of implementation, creating an additional regulator may simply add another layer of bureaucracy without addressing the underlying problem.
A first-principles analysis therefore requires us to ask a simple but fundamental question: What specific problem can the proposed Foreign Aid Regulatory Commission solve that existing institutions cannot solve? This question is particularly important in Nigeria, where institutional proliferation has often outpaced institutional effectiveness. Successive governments have frequently responded to governance challenges by creating new agencies, commissions, task forces, and committees. While some have filled genuine gaps, others have generated overlapping mandates, reporting burdens, administrative inefficiencies, and jurisdictional disputes. The existence of a governance problem does not automatically justify the creation of a new institution.
Foreign aid is not currently unregulated in Nigeria. Civil society organisations operate under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, which establishes governance, fiduciary, and reporting obligations for incorporated trustees. Organisations receiving foreign funding are already subject to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing obligations under the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. Many organisations are required to register with the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML), while financial intelligence reporting obligations fall within the mandate of the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU). Additional oversight responsibilities are exercised by the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the National Revenue Service (NRS), and sector-specific regulators.
This existing architecture may not be perfect, but it raises an important governance question: Is Nigeria confronting a regulatory gap or an implementation gap? A regulatory gap exists where no institution possesses the legal authority to address a particular challenge. An implementation gap exists where institutions possess the necessary authority but are unable to exercise it effectively due to weak coordination, inadequate capacity, poor information systems, fragmented mandates, or insufficient political support. The distinction matters because the policy responses are fundamentally different. Where the problem is regulatory, new legal authority may be required. Where the problem is implementation, institutional strengthening and coordination may be more effective than creating another regulator.
One of the most interesting features of the Bill is that it combines coordination functions and regulatory functions within a single institution. The proposed Commission would be responsible for maintaining a national database of foreign aid, improving visibility over aid flows, promoting alignment with national development priorities, and reducing duplication of interventions. These are coordination functions. At the same time, it would exercise powers relating to registration, inspections, investigations, compliance monitoring, sanctions, and enforcement. These are regulatory functions. While the two may complement each other, they are conceptually different and require different institutional capabilities.
Coordination is primarily an information and governance challenge. It depends on effective data systems, planning frameworks, stakeholder engagement, and institutional collaboration. Regulation, by contrast, depends on legal authority, compliance obligations, enforcement mechanisms, and sanctions. The Bill appears to pursue both objectives simultaneously without fully clarifying whether Nigeria’s principal challenge is insufficient coordination or insufficient regulation. Yet the answer to that question has significant implications for institutional design. If the primary challenge is fragmented information and weak coordination, then strengthening planning and information systems may achieve better results than establishing a new regulator. If the challenge is widespread non-compliance and accountability failures, the case for additional regulatory intervention becomes stronger.
The Bill must also be assessed against the constitutional framework within which all legislation operates. Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), guarantees freedom of association, while Section 39 protects freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information. These provisions provide the constitutional foundation upon which civil society organisations, professional associations, advocacy groups, faith-based institutions, and community organisations operate.
At the same time, the Constitution imposes obligations on the State. Section 14(2)(b) establishes that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Section 15(5) directs the State to abolish corrupt practices and abuse of power, while Section 16 requires the government to promote economic development and manage resources in the public interest. The Constitution therefore does not require policymakers to choose between accountability and freedom; it requires both. The challenge before Parliament is ensuring that accountability mechanisms are necessary, proportionate, transparent, and accompanied by safeguards against abuse or arbitrary application.
The political economy behind the Bill is equally important. Legislative proposals rarely emerge in a vacuum. Across the world, governments are paying closer attention to foreign funding, anti-money laundering compliance, aid effectiveness, and the alignment of external financing with national priorities. Fiscal pressures, rising debt burdens, shrinking aid budgets, and increasing demands for accountability have encouraged governments to seek greater visibility over external development resources. In some jurisdictions, concerns about externally funded advocacy have also strengthened calls for greater oversight of foreign funding.
Viewed through this lens, the Foreign Aid Bill may be understood as part of a broader effort by the Nigerian state to increase visibility over development finance and strengthen oversight of external resources. The issue is therefore larger than NGOs. It concerns the evolving relationship between sovereignty, development finance, accountability, and democratic participation.
For civil society, however, the most important lesson from this debate lies beyond the Bill itself. For many years, the sector’s engagement with regulation has been largely reactive. A proposal emerges. Coalitions mobilise. Position papers are drafted. Public hearings are attended. Immediate concerns are addressed. Then attention shifts elsewhere until another proposal emerges. The cycle repeats itself.
Whether this Bill passes, fails, or is substantially amended, the issues that produced it are unlikely to disappear. Questions about transparency, accountability, foreign funding, public trust, legitimacy, anti-money laundering compliance, and development effectiveness will continue to shape the environment within which civil society operates. The sector therefore faces a strategic choice: continue reacting to regulation or proactively define the accountability framework it believes should govern its work.
This is where the conversation should move beyond the Bill. Rather than focusing exclusively on supporting or opposing the legislation, civil society should consider developing a sector-wide Accountability and Integrity Compact built around voluntary standards for governance, financial transparency, safeguarding, ethical fundraising, conflict-of-interest management, beneficiary accountability, and public disclosure. Such an initiative would strengthen legitimacy, improve public trust, and demonstrate a commitment to accountability from within the sector itself.
Ultimately, the Foreign Aid Bill is not merely a debate about foreign funding. It is a governance conversation about how a constitutional democracy balances accountability and freedom, sovereignty and openness, transparency and participation. For Parliament, the challenge is to strengthen accountability without creating unnecessary institutional duplication or undermining constitutional freedoms. For civil society, the challenge is to move beyond reactive engagement and help shape the accountability architecture of the future. History offers a simple lesson: institutions that wait to be regulated are often regulated by others. Institutions that lead on accountability help shape the standards by which they are governed.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.comÂ
John Onyeukwu, is a lawyer and public policy analyst with interdisciplinary expertise in law, governance, and institutional reform. He holds an LL.B (Hons) from Obafemi Awolowo University, an LL.M from the University of Lagos, and dual master’s degrees in Public Policy from the University of York and Central European University. He also earned a Mini-MBA. John has managed development projects on governance, public finance, civic engagement, and service delivery. He can be reached on john@apexlegal.com.ng
Independence illusions: African nations need strategic autonomy