The House of Representatives Committee on Nutrition and Food Security has commenced an investigation into the insurance component of the ₦ 1.12 trillion Anchor Borrowers’ Programme, as part of a broader probe into alleged mismanagement and diversion of agricultural intervention funds.

The investigative hearing, presided over by the Committee Chairman, Mr Chike Okafor, forms part of an ongoing inquiry into the role of Ministries, Departments and Agencies and Participating Financial Institutions in the implementation of government-backed agricultural schemes.

At the session on Thursday, the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation disclosed that it provided insurance cover to only 207,514 farmers, valued at ₦109bn, under the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme.

Representative of the Managing Director of NAIC, Dayo Babaronti, told the committee that the Central Bank of Nigeria deviated from the programme’s original framework, which designated NAIC as the sole insurer.

He said the apex bank instead engaged additional firms.

He said, “The Central Bank of Nigeria, contrary to the Anchor Borrowers Scheme’s initial policy, under which NAIC was appointed as the sole insurance company to cover participants, contracted two other insurance firms, Veritas Kapital Insurance and Leadway Insurance.”

However, both Veritas Kapital Insurance and Leadway Insurance were absent at the hearing.

Babaronti further revealed that NAIC’s overall coverage under the scheme stood at just 12 per cent.

Providing further details, he stated that under the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending Plc’s ₦250bn agricultural financing facility, NAIC insured only ₦8.25bn.

He added, “For the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending Plc’s agricultural financing ₦250bn facility to support smallholder farmers across the country, NAIC only provided cover to the tune of ₦8.25bn.

“NIAC only provided ₦715m worth of coverage for 80 hectares of ginger farms out of the ₦1.6bn funding announced for the programme.”

On the Bank of Industry’s Agro and Food Processor Scheme, Babaronti said NAIC was not assigned any beneficiaries to insure, contrary to the policy underpinning the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme.

After the submission, Okafor said the committee would invite NAIC again, citing complaints from farmers and commodity associations over the level of insurance coverage.

He also faulted the agency for submitting its documents late, noting that members had insufficient time to review the materials ahead of the hearing.

He reiterated the resolve of the House to get to the root of the issues affecting the effectiveness of government interventions in the agricultural sector.

According to him, preliminary findings pointed to a disconnect between policy design and implementation.

Okafor noted that key stakeholders, particularly farmers and commodity associations, were largely excluded from the design of programmes such as the Anchor Borrowers’ Scheme.

“The reason why we are here is that the programmes did not succeed 100 %. If they had succeeded 100 %, we would not be here,” Okafor said.

The current probe is anchored on a resolution of the House adopted on July 1, 2025, mandating its Committees on Nutrition and Food Security, Agricultural Production and Services; Agricultural Colleges and Institutions; and Finance to investigate the utilisation of agricultural intervention funds across government agencies and programmes.

The resolution followed widespread concerns over the performance of major intervention schemes, including the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme, amid persistent food insecurity, rising cost of food items and complaints from farmers over limited access to funding and support services.

Lawmakers had expressed concern that despite trillions of naira committed to agricultural interventions over the years, the expected outcomes in food production, value chain development and farmer support had not been realised.

The House specifically resolved to probe allegations that funds released for agricultural programmes were either misapplied, poorly coordinated, or diverted through MDAs and participating institutions operating outside the supervision of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security.

The committees were therefore tasked with establishing the extent of fund disbursement, utilisation, insurance coverage, and overall impact of the interventions, with a view to identifying gaps, ensuring accountability and recommending reforms.

Thursday’s hearing marks a continuation of that process, with a focus on the insurance framework of the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme—an aspect lawmakers say is critical to safeguarding farmers and public funds.

Source - https://punchng.com