By Falade Olusegun
@oluspencer on x
ABUJA — The atmosphere inside the Senate committee room was calm but expectant when Mark Okoye, managing director of the South East Development Commission (SEDC), began his presentation on the commission’s proposed N140 billion 2026 budget.
Over the next few hours, the session felt less like a normal budget defence and more like a clash between two different ideas of development — one focused on long-term planning and transforming the region, and the other focused on immediate spending and quick political gains.
Okoye’s presentation was structured, data-driven, and unapologetically ambitious.
He spoke about infrastructure renewal, industrial acceleration, disciplined capital mobilisation through the South East Investment Company (SEIC), and — notably — youth empowerment as the foundation of regional stability.
He outlined hackathons, innovation fellowships, structured internships, campus programmes, sports empowerment platforms, and entrepreneurship pipelines aimed at preparing Southeast youths for a competitive global economy.
“Our role is not only infrastructure; we have to work on the minds of our people,” he said at one point, emphasising that sustainable security must include economic and intellectual empowerment.
The room listened.
Orji Uzor Kalu, chairman of the committee, described the documents presented by the commission as “bankable”.
“This commission must not be a place for siphoning money. It must rekindle hope and drive economic development,” Kalu said.
Patrick Ndubueze, senator representing Imo north, stressed that the commission must think big , citing need for regional rail connectivity
Victor Umeh, Anambra Central senator, praised the groundwork laid despite funding delays.
“We have lost one year, you have taken time to work without money. But you have laid the foundation and critical plans to start the process,” Umeh said.
Emma Nwachukwu (Anambra south) and Ezenwa Onyebuchi (Imo east) also commended the structured outlook and emphasis on measurable outcomes.
There was a recurring theme: fiscal discipline, macro-projects, regional integration, and measurable impact.
Then the mood shifted.
Tony Nwoye, senator representing Anambra North, walked into the session midway through Okoye’s presentation.
He questioned aspects of the proposal, particularly around the security allocation, and appeared to dismiss parts of the strategic outlook.
Before extended deliberation could follow, he walked out.
It was abrupt.
Hours later, short clips of Nwoye’s comments started trending on social media — without the full context of the session or the strong praise that other lawmakers had given.
The timing raised eyebrows.
Inside the room, the tone had been constructive.
Outside, the narrative was being reshaped.
The clip suggested tension; the full session reflected legislative scrutiny alongside endorsement.
The Senate had, after all, endorsed the N140 billion proposal while insisting on fiscal discipline and measurable security outcomes.
The commission had clarified that N108 billion was earmarked for capital expenditure, with recurrent and personnel costs significantly lower.
It also disclosed that despite zero capital release in 2025, feasibility studies and institutional groundwork had been completed, and no salaries paid.
Yet the social media narrative focused narrowly on confrontation.
There is a bigger issue behind all this.
Development commissions in Nigeria often face the temptation of “micro-intervention politics” — distributing projects in ways that mirror constituency patronage.
In the Niger Delta, critics have long argued that the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) drifted from its macro-regional mandate into fragmented, politically influenced spending.
Several lawmakers at the session appeared determined that the SEDC should not go that route.
The debate, therefore, was not merely about figures.
It was about philosophy.
Should a regional development commission focus on rail corridors, industrial hubs, youth venture capital, agricultural de-risking, and institutional reform?
Or should it prioritise dispersed, small-scale projects that satisfy short-term political expectations?
From the vantage point of the committee room, the majority leaned toward the former.
Outside the chamber, however, the battle for perception had begun.
If there was a lesson from that day, it is this: in modern governance, policy debates do not end in committee rooms — they continue online.
And sometimes, a 30-second clip travels faster than a 200-page strategic document.