As Ondo Assembly considers ₦769.38bn revised budget, questions over project’s original status, legislative scrutiny and alleged budget alterations deepen
By Jimoh Ahmed
AKURE — The controversy surrounding the proposed ₦139 billion Akure flyover has taken a new turn, following the Ondo State Government’s submission of a revised 2026 budget of ₦769.384 billion to the State House of Assembly.
The development has raised a fundamental question: Will the Ondo State House of Assembly approve the revised budget without subjecting the controversial flyover project and other major expenditure items to rigorous scrutiny?
The answer could have significant implications for the relationship between the executive and legislature in Ondo State.
The government’s 2026 budget was initially pegged at ₦524.411 billion. The revised figure represents an increase of approximately ₦244.973 billion.
Among the projects reportedly accommodated in the budget reordering is the ₦139 billion Akure flyover, a massive infrastructure project that has already generated divergent reactions across the state.
A project that has divided opinion
For many residents of Akure, the state capital, the flyover represents development long overdue.
Their argument is straightforward: Akure has expanded considerably and requires modern traffic infrastructure capable of supporting its growing population and economic activities.
But critics are asking a different question.
Is spending ₦139 billion on a single 2.3-kilometre road infrastructure project the best way to distribute scarce public resources across Ondo State’s 18 local government areas?
The debate is therefore not necessarily about whether Akure deserves development.
It is about priority, value for money, transparency and the process through which such a huge expenditure commitment entered the state’s financial plan.
That distinction is important.
The budget question
The most troubling issue emerging from the controversy is the claim that the flyover was not contained in the original 2026 budget passed by the House of Assembly.
That allegation, if established by documentary evidence, raises serious constitutional and legislative questions.
The State Government has now presented a revised budget in which the project reportedly features.
But the crucial question is:
Was the project part of the budget law originally passed by the legislature, or was it subsequently introduced through an alteration of the approved budget?
If it was subsequently inserted, who authorised the alteration?
When was it done?
Was the House formally consulted?
Were all lawmakers aware?
And, most importantly, what documents can establish the chronology?
These are questions that cannot be settled by political arguments or social-media claims. They require the Assembly to open the relevant budget documents to public scrutiny.
The Speaker controversy
The flyover controversy is unfolding against the background of an already troubled relationship within the Ondo State House of Assembly.
There have been allegations by some lawmakers concerning the leadership of Speaker Olamide Oladiji, including claims that the Speaker has operated the legislature without sufficient consultation with other members.
One allegation that has circulated concerns the handling of the OSOPADEC budget.
There have also been claims that projects were allegedly introduced into the state budget without the knowledge or approval of all lawmakers.
These remain allegations and should be independently verified against the official legislative records.
But if such claims are accurate, the ₦139 billion flyover provides an opportunity for the Assembly to demonstrate whether it can independently scrutinise executive expenditure.
The bigger question: rubber stamp or watchdog?
The Ondo State House of Assembly now faces a defining test.
The revised budget is reportedly worth ₦769.384 billion.
That is public money.
Every naira contained in it ultimately belongs to the people of Ondo State.
The responsibility of lawmakers is therefore not merely to approve whatever the executive presents.
They are expected to examine the proposals, interrogate the assumptions behind them, demand supporting documents and determine whether proposed expenditures comply with the law and serve the public interest.
For the flyover specifically, lawmakers should demand answers to several questions.
The questions the Assembly should answer
1. Was the ₦139 billion flyover included in the original 2026 appropriation law?
2. If it was not, through what legal process was it introduced?
3. What is the detailed cost breakdown of the project?
4. What company or companies are executing the project?
5. What procurement process was followed?
6. Has the contract been reviewed or varied since it was awarded?
7. How much has already been paid to the contractor?
8. What is the source of funding for the project?
9. What traffic studies and engineering assessments informed the decision to construct a 2.3-kilometre flyover at the stated cost?
10. What independent mechanism exists to monitor the project and prevent cost escalation?
These are not anti-government questions.
They are the basic questions expected of a legislature exercising financial oversight.
Can the Assembly resist political pressure?
Another dimension of the controversy concerns the political arithmetic inside the Assembly.
There are claims that Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa does not enjoy the support of a clear majority of lawmakers on every issue.
There are also allegations that some lawmakers have political grievances against the governor, including disputes surrounding party tickets and previous political disagreements.
Those claims require verification.
But regardless of political alignments, one principle should remain constant:
The Assembly should scrutinise the revised budget on its merits, not according to the political relationship between individual lawmakers and the governor.
If the flyover represents good value for money and satisfies all legal and procurement requirements, lawmakers should be able to defend its approval publicly.
If serious irregularities are discovered, they should also have the courage to demand corrections.
What happens if the Assembly approves it?
This is where the controversy becomes even more significant.
If the Assembly approves the revised ₦769.384 billion budget, the government will have a fresh appropriation framework within which the projects contained in it can be funded.
But approval of the revised budget should not automatically erase questions about what happened before its submission.
A new appropriation cannot simply be treated as a mechanism for retrospectively legitimising actions that may have occurred outside the law.
That is precisely why the Assembly must establish the chronology.
What was approved originally? What was subsequently altered? Who authorised each alteration? And under what legal authority?
Those answers matter more than political rhetoric.
The EFCC angle
There have also been calls for anti-corruption agencies, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, to examine certain financial transactions involving state institutions.
Reports have previously emerged concerning investigations involving some OSOPADEC personnel.
However, investigations and allegations should not be conflated with proof of wrongdoing.
If there are credible petitions or documentary evidence suggesting financial misconduct, the appropriate agencies should independently examine them.
The same standard should apply to everyone — government officials, lawmakers, contractors and public servants.
The ₦139bn test
The Akure flyover may ultimately become more than a road project.
It could become a test of the strength of democratic institutions in Ondo State.
Can the executive explain the project?
Can the legislature interrogate the expenditure?
Can lawmakers demand documents without fear?
Can the contractor explain the cost?
Can the people see the contract, procurement details and implementation timetable?
And can the government demonstrate that the project offers value commensurate with the enormous amount of public money being committed?
These are legitimate questions in any democracy.
The people of Ondo State should not be forced to choose between development and accountability.
They deserve both.
The Pivot Online’s position
The Pivot Online is not opposed to the development of Akure or the construction of major infrastructure.
Neither should legitimate criticism of a government project automatically be interpreted as opposition to development.
Our concern is simple:
₦139 billion is too much public money to be shielded from serious public scrutiny.
The Ondo State House of Assembly therefore has an opportunity to show that legislative oversight is more than the formal passage of government proposals.
The lawmakers should place the revised budget under the microscope.
They should demand the documents.
They should invite the relevant officials where necessary.
They should examine the flyover contract.
They should establish when and how the project entered the budget.
And if everything is lawful and economically justified, they should tell the people of Ondo State why.
But if anything is irregular, the Assembly must have the courage to say so.
The question confronting the lawmakers is therefore not whether they are for or against Governor Aiyedatiwa.
It is whether, when ₦769.384 billion of public money is placed before them, they will act as representatives of the people first.
That is the real test.