Who will support democracy in Nigeria?

Nigeria’s democracy is facing tough times as governance issues worsen. Donor support for transparency, accountability, and democracy programs in Nigeria is quietly being reduced. Should Nigerians be concerned?

For nearly ten years, major donor-funded programs helped improve transparency and accountability in Nigeria. Today, many of these programs have either ended or changed direction. MacArthur’s On Nigeria program, which was one of the biggest investments in accountability in the country, will finish at the end of 2024. For about a decade, this program supported efforts like criminal justice reform, investigative journalism, social change, and collective action. Other organizations, including Luminate, Ford, Open Society, and FCDO, have also cut back or changed their support, leaving fewer resources for tackling corruption, civic engagement, and public sector reform.

The cuts to USAID and similar programs across Africa in 2025 added to the problem. It showed that aid can be suddenly stopped for political reasons. The UK plans to cut its official development assistance to about 0.3 percent of its national income over the next four to five years. Many European donors and multilateral agencies are also making similar cuts. In 2025, at least 17 EU member states reduced aid, and 26 of 34 DAC states lowered their aid budgets.

This means that the current issues in Nigeria’s governance sector are just the start. The worst effects are yet to come. Donors often view governance and democracy work as politically risky compared to areas like health or infrastructure. But African governments, including Nigeria’s, seldom invest seriously in efforts to strengthen democracy, support civic education, or back independent media and watchdog groups. The groups and people that make democratic accountability work often rely on external support, which is now fading away, making democracy more at risk.

It is understandable that donors are tired of funding governance-related projects. After years of investment, it is hard to see major changes. But governance reform does not happen in a straight line, and it rarely fits neatly into a short project cycle. The solution to slow progress is not to pull out. Instead, it requires smarter, more aware, and locally led support. Reducing support for governance programs at this critical moment in Nigeria’s political journey could be much more expensive for the future of democracy. It risks wasting past investments and deepening citizens’ distrust of both their government and democracy.

While philanthropic organizations and agencies can decide how to support, they have a big responsibility to ensure their investments help the public good. This is especially true in protecting the institutions that make democracy work. In Nigeria today, international aid must address urgent national needs. No need is more urgent than philanthropy’s role in building democracy in Nigeria now.

First, resources are needed to grow a new generation of democrats. Nigeria’s youth are politically aware but growing increasingly disillusioned. Without focused efforts to improve civic education, promote democratic values and leadership, and connect young people to decision-making, there is no guarantee that Nigeria’s future will be more democratic unless young people are supported to organize, lead, and participate effectively.

Second, funding is crucial to slow and reverse the decline in accountability. When civil society groups, investigative journalists, and public-interest lawyers lose funding, those who manage public resources face less oversight. This makes it easier for them to silence critics, normalize wrongdoings, and treat public funds as their own. This is already happening in Nigeria.

Third, Nigeria needs investments that encourage innovation, movement-building, and collective action. Past programs have shown that real progress often happens when groups across different areas work together. This includes communities, media, reform-minded officials, creatives, and activists working towards shared goals. Flexible funding that supports partnerships, experimentation, and learning is far more likely to change systems than isolated projects.

Governance funding should specifically support “change champions” within government and public institutions. Reform-minded officials often work with little backing and face personal risks. When civil society and donors team up with them on open budgeting, procurement reforms, justice improvements, or digital transparency, the chances of lasting change increase significantly.

What should take the place of the old model is a long-term partnership with Nigerian actors as leaders in setting the agenda. This means providing more core funding, longer timeframes, and a clearer focus on building strong institutions and citizen movements, rather than seeking short-term visibility. It also means being honest about politics: governance work involves who has power, how they are held in check, and whether citizens can influence the rules.

For Nigeria, this is a key moment for both local leaders and international partners. Pulling back from governance now may seem like a smart financial move, but it will come with political costs. The consequences will be both everyday and deep-rooted, weaker institutions, greater cynicism, and a democracy that exists more on paper than in reality. The effort to restore governance and democracy in Nigeria requires not less funding, but better, bolder, and more locally focused funding.