The Unchecked Building Practices Undermining Public Infrastructure Across Nigeria

As of July 2025, Nigeria had recorded over 165 reported building collapses since 2022, with Lagos State accounting for more than half. These figures reflect not only a recurring safety crisis but also a broader institutional challenge concerning quality control, regulatory enforcement, and construction governance. What stands out is not just the frequency of the incidents, but their dangerous predictability. Many of these buildings were relatively new, officially certified, and in some cases, funded through public budgets. Beyond the loss of lives, collapses result in mass displacement, economic disruption, and a steady erosion of public confidence in both the construction industry and regulatory institutions. For small business owners, families, and schoolchildren, the failure of a single structure can upend daily life and long-term security. For policymakers, it presents a growing risk to the credibility of infrastructure delivery and long-term national planning. Unchecked building practices have gradually become embedded in the execution of public infrastructure across Nigeria. Understanding how this has happened, who is involved, what incentives allow it to persist, and which interventions are most viable is essential for shaping a more resilient and accountable construction ecosystem.

How Substandard Became Standard Practice in Public Works

In any infrastructure system, quality is only as reliable as the institutional processes that sustain it. In Nigeria, the widespread failure of public projects is not due to isolated missteps but the result of a persistent, systemic pattern where flawed procurement, inadequate oversight, and distorted incentives consistently undermine structural integrity. The 2022 classroom collapse in Dakwa, Niger State, exemplifies this breakdown. The building, recently constructed, gave way less than a year later, fortunately on a weekend. While casualties were avoided, the implications were stark. Such failures are not anomalies. They are predictable consequences of a system that prioritizes speed over scrutiny and political access over technical competence. Procurement remains a primary fault line. Government contracts are frequently allocated through political patronage or informal networks, bypassing established procedures and excluding technically competent professionals. Once awarded, these contracts often become exercises in cost minimization rather than compliance. To preserve profit margins, substandard materials are routinely substituted, and essential design specifications are ignored. Public school infrastructure illustrates this trend vividly cracked walls, leaking roofs, and warped floors within a single rainy season. These are not deteriorating assets; they are newly constructed facilities already in decline. Oversight mechanisms are similarly deficient. Many construction sites, particularly in rural communities or lower-priority urban zones, operate without qualified engineering supervision. In the absence of regulatory enforcement or consistent site inspections, unskilled laborers are left to manage execution. Adherence to structural drawings, soil reports, or proper sequencing becomes optional rather than mandatory. Post-construction accountability is virtually non-existent. Upon completion, many projects are certified solely through paperwork. Regulatory bodies seldom return to assess quality or verify safety standards. Even where defects are evident, enforcement agencies rarely intervene until a structural failure occurs. This institutional silence leaves critical risks unaddressed and communities vulnerable. Underlying all of this is a culture of political urgency. The pressure to deliver visible outcomes within electoral timelines or budget cycles encourages rushed, superficial interventions. As a result, public works are often executed without adequate planning or technical diligence. Toilets are erected without plumbing. Roads are paved without foundational preparation. Drainage systems are left incomplete. These projects may serve political optics, but they erode infrastructure reliability and inflate long-term public costs.

When Investment Doesn’t Translate to Impact

Between 2015 and 2024, Nigeria allocated over ₦126 trillion to infrastructure development. The scale of this investment suggests progress, yet the sector continues to suffer from entrenched inefficiencies. Weak regulation, limited quality control, and poor project oversight have consistently undermined returns. A clear sign of this breakdown is the rising number of building collapses. From 2022 to 2024, more than 135 incidents were recorded, causing widespread property damage, emergency expenditures, and commercial disruption. These were not limited to informal settlements; they included commercial complexes, and public buildings. The scale and location of these failures point to broader lapses in enforcing construction standards and holding professionals accountable. The consequences extend far beyond the damage itself. Developers now face higher insurance premiums or struggle to secure coverage at all especially in high-risk zones. These increased costs delay projects, strain financing, and contribute to the slowdown in urban development. In Lagos, this uncertainty has made the real estate market more volatile, deterring potential investors and shifting capital elsewhere. Across the country, nearly 70% of infrastructure projects are either abandoned, delayed, or forced into reconstruction. Public funds are routinely absorbed by inefficiencies, with little to show in long-term outcomes. Local economies bear the brunt. Businesses located in or near failed infrastructure often don’t recover. Around 45% of affected firms never reopen, with annual income losses estimated at $300 million. These patterns are beginning to shape investor sentiment. Persistent failure, regulatory inconsistency, and poor risk management have already triggered capital flight. Projections warn that, without reform, Nigeria could lose up to $15 billion annually in foreign direct investment by 2030. This is more than a development challenge. Weak infrastructure oversight inflates costs, disrupts growth, and slows national progress. Improving outcomes will take more than increased funding. It will require institutional reform to ensure that infrastructure investment delivers clear, measurable value over time.

Structural Blind Spots

Despite the frequency and visibility of failed infrastructure in Nigeria, systemic gaps persist, allowing these failures to remain unchecked.  While regulations and building codes do exist, enforcement is often inconsistent and largely reactive. Agencies responsible for oversight frequently lack the technical capacity, staffing, and independence to execute their mandates effectively. In many cases, inspection protocols are treated as box-checking exercises, an obligation, not a safeguard. The absence of proper resourcing is compounded by deeper political dysfunction: many regulatory bodies operate under the influence of political appointees who prioritize expediency or patronage over compliance. Accountability mechanisms, where they exist, are easily circumvented. Contractors with a history of poor performance often re-enter the market under new corporate identities or through proxies. This is enabled by opaque procurement systems and weak legal enforcement. Rarely are firms blacklisted, and even when investigations are launched, the slow pace of the judicial system discourages resolution. With few deterrents in place, malpractice becomes a rational business strategy. The quality of labor also plays a critical role. Much of Nigeria’s construction sector is dominated by informal workers, skilled in experience but unlicensed and untrained in modern techniques or safety standards. Without a pipeline for certified training or regulation, even well-intentioned projects suffer from variable execution, leading to long-term structural weaknesses. Compounding these challenges is the high turnover within government institutions. Each election cycle brings leadership reshuffles and shifts in infrastructure priorities, disrupting continuity and institutional memory. This fuels a short-term, optics-driven approach to public works: fast-tracked timelines, superficial compliance, and a focus on ribbon-cutting over resilience. Finally, it’s worth acknowledging the role of public culture. In many communities, the acceptance of poor infrastructure has become normalized. Citizens no longer expect durability; they expect patchwork fixes. This low bar further weakens pressure for systemic reform, making failure not just possible, but predictable.

Building Stronger Oversight for Safer Infrastructure

Addressing Nigeria’s infrastructure failures requires more than isolated interventions. It demands a coherent oversight system capable of enforcing standards, promoting transparency, and ensuring accountability across all levels of construction and governance. While financial mismanagement and corruption are often blamed, the root causes run deeper, toward a fragmented regulatory landscape and limited institutional capacity. One of the key institutions currently tasked with oversight is the Council of Registered Builders of Nigeria (CORBON). Through its National Public Building Maintenance Monitoring Programme, CORBON monitors building sites nationwide to assess adherence to construction codes and professional standards. While this initiative is a step in the right direction, the council currently lacks the legal authority to enforce penalties or halt projects that violate regulations. Enhancing its statutory powers would enable it to intervene more effectively and deter negligence before it leads to structural failures. Nonetheless, a multi-institutional approach is essential to close remaining gaps in oversight. The Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN) plays a parallel role in supervising engineering works, including roads, bridges, and other public infrastructure. Coordination between CORBON and COREN could close many of the oversight gaps that exist across different sectors, ensuring that both structural and civil works are held to rigorous and consistent standards. Alongside stronger institutional coordination, transparency must be embedded in the oversight process. International models offer useful lessons. Countries such as Chile and South Korea require public reporting of project timelines, contractor information, and inspection findings. A similar approach in Nigeria would increase scrutiny, reduce the opportunity for poor practices to be concealed, and enable public monitoring of infrastructure performance. Furthermore, enforcement mechanisms must extend beyond project inspection. A national blacklist of contractors who have failed to meet performance standards could prevent repeat offenders from obtaining new contracts under different business names. Such a system would not only discourage malpractice but also promote a culture of professional accountability. Finally, no oversight system can function without qualified personnel. CORBON’s mandate already includes the registration and certification of builders. Making certification a mandatory requirement for participation in public projects would improve technical capacity on construction sites. Complementary investments in worker training and site supervision would help close the skills gap and reinforce a culture of compliance. Ultimately, improving Nigeria’s infrastructure depends on a system of checks and balances that is both independent and coordinated, preventive rather than reactive, and grounded in transparency and skill development.

Conclusion

Reform isn’t just about fixing what’s broken; it’s about redefining what infrastructure success should look like. For Nigeria, that means shifting from a focus on budget size to investment quality. It means moving beyond ribbon-cutting ceremonies to long-term outcomes that hold up over time, physically and economically. Without systems that reward competence, enforce standards, and prioritize end-user value, capital will continue to move faster than capacity. And the result will remain the same: impressive numbers on paper, but limited impact on the ground.