The story of ‘briefcase’ farmers

Last year, an internal review by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) disclosed that its intervention portfolio had surpassed N10 trillion. But approximately N4.7 trillion of this fund remained unrecovered.

In recent months, the Bank of Agriculture (BOA) has unveiled a nationwide initiative to recover over N20 billion worth of non-performing loans as part of its recapitalisation efforts.

Since 2017, the Bank of Industry, which also provides funding to agricultural businesses, has had billions of non-performing loans in its portfolio.

People who pretend to be legitimate farmers claim significant portions of these loans and obtain government subsidies, subsidised loans and input supports without actually owning or running a farm, Weekend Trust gathered.

• Tinubu’s northern test begins
• Inside FCT’s education crisis

These ‘briefcase farmers’ are known by several colloquial and descriptive terms: political farmers, paper farmers, ghost farmers, portfolio farmers/briefcase farmers, Abuja farmers, armchair farmers, office farmers, WhatsApp and telephone farmers.

These so-called farmers are politicians, well-connected people or their friends, who utilise political influence and patronage to divert seed, fertiliser and loan facilities intended for real rural smallholders.

Agricultural activities of these individuals are exclusively documented through fraudulent registrations, bogus proposals and fake cooperative societies established solely to attract financial or input support.

According to an agricultural economist, Mr Innocent Oklo, corrupt officials add fictitious or identity-theft-based names to government databases, including the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) to steal inputs and fertilisers for resale.

He also said some affluent urban elites successfully sought agricultural grants or loans using their corporate or political connections, only to use the money for other industries like real estate, forex trading or oil and gas.

Another agricultural economist, James Torkaa, told Weekend Trust that such ‘farmers’ only go about with portfolios and Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) certificates to collect inputs, loans and anchor borrowers’ money.’

“They don’t even visit any farm, but they collect subsidies from air-conditioned offices. They are either politicians, ex-politicians or their wives, as well as cronies who get on the list because of connections. They only own lands on paper,” Torkaa alleged.

In a presentation at the GIZ Agric Finance closeout session in Abuja recently, Dr Michael Ononugbo, Deputy Director and Special Assistant, Office of the Deputy Governor, Economic Policy Directorate, Central Bank of Nigeria, said “experience over the years unearthed the limitations of direct intervention models” by the apex bank.

“Following an internal assessment in 2025, the bank’s intervention portfolio exceeded N10 trillion, with outstanding repayments nearing N4.7 trillion. Although these interventions provided short-term support to key sectors, they generated significant market distortions, spurred excess liquidity and caused challenges for monetary management. These experiences underscored the need for a rethink and the search for a more pragmatic and sustainable approach to development financing,” he said.

In 2024, the House of Representatives launched an investigation into “the alleged misuse of government interventions and agricultural funding by departments, agencies, schemes and programmes outside the Federal Ministry of Agriculture,” worth N2 trillion.

The parliamentarians said spending through the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL), Anchor Borrowers’ Programme and other interventions by the federal government ran into trillions without any commensurate output.

Our correspondents report that misuse of state-owned agricultural support interventions is widespread across states.

Experts and agricultural stakeholders who spoke to our correspondents warned that the practice was reducing crop yield, wasting public resources and worsening food insecurity.

They alleged that the development continued despite substantial government spending and investments by development partners to improve agricultural production.

An agronomist and seed specialist at the Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi (JOSTUM), Dr Teryima Iorlamen, said people who neither own nor cultivate farmland were increasingly benefitting from agricultural support schemes at the expense of genuine farmers.

He alleged that some government officials and individuals entrusted with distributing agricultural inputs manipulate beneficiary lists, nominate relatives and associates who are not farmers, and divert supplies for personal or political gains.

Iorlamen said the situation had become a major setback to agricultural development because farmers who depended on government support to improve production were often denied access to the inputs provided for them.

He cited the distribution of fertilisers purchased by the Benue State Government, alleging that some of the supplies ended up in the hands of traders at New Garage in Makurdi or were taken outside the state instead of reaching farmers.

He noted that such diversions had direct consequences for agricultural productivity because farmers who cannot obtain the fertilisers and other inputs required for their farms are likely to record lower yields.

“If I need to apply for four bags of fertiliser; maybe 10 or six bags per hectare and the government makes a budget to provide six bags for each farmer, but the fertiliser does not reach the farmer, the yield will be low,” he said.

He explained that reduced output at individual farms would eventually affect the state’s aggregate agricultural production and the national economy.

“The fact that Benue State is the Food Basket of the Nation does not mean the government has a farm of one million hectares. It is what many people produce that add up to what the state produces,” he said.

Iorlamen warned that when farmers’ output declined because they lacked access to essential inputs, the consequences would extend beyond individual households to food availability, agricultural productivity and economic growth.

He said the problem was not limited to government officials and contractors as some beneficiaries also resold subsidised inputs because of pressing financial needs, including medical bills, funeral expenses and school fees.

However, he argued that the possibility of diversion made it necessary for the government to reconsider the practice of distributing subsidised agricultural inputs without adequate monitoring.

He added that rather than concentrating support on fertilisers and other inputs, governments should consider guaranteeing better prices for farm produce, allowing genuine farmers to receive more direct economic benefits from their labour.

He suggested that government could offer to purchase farmers’ produce at guaranteed prices above prevailing market rates, thereby improving their incomes and reducing their dependence on subsidised inputs.

“For example, if a bag of rice is selling at N55,000, I would prefer that the government tells farmers that it would buy it at N80,000. That way, the additional N25,000 goes to the farmer, who has done the work of producing the rice,” he said.

The agronomist also advocated a comprehensive agricultural support system that covers land preparation, seeds, fertilisers and other essential inputs, with monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the assistance reaches genuine farmers.

He cited what he observed in Jigawa State, where he said the government supported farmers through a cluster farming arrangement involving land preparation, demarcation of plots and the provision of crop-specific inputs.

According to Iorlamen, under the arrangement, farmers are assigned identifiable plots, and they receive the inputs required to cultivate crops, such as rice, maize and cowpea.

He said adopting a similar approach in Benue would make it easier for the authorities to identify genuine farmers, monitor their activities and determine whether agricultural inputs were being used for their intended purposes.

He also recommended that farmers seeking government’s support should have their farmlands mapped, with Global Positioning System (GPS) coordination recorded to enable officials verify the existence of their farms and monitor cultivation.

Iorlamen also said distribution of inputs should be done in phases, with subsequent supplies released only after officials have verified that beneficiaries used earlier allocations for the intended farming activities.

“For instance, if a farmer is preparing to plant, the government can provide seeds and herbicides for the first stage. After planting, officials should visit the farm to verify progress before providing the next batch of inputs, such as fertiliser,” he said.

He urged the government to work with credible agricultural organisations, including those operating out-grower schemes, to identify genuine farmers and develop a reliable database of beneficiaries.

Iorlamen also called for a comprehensive census of farmers and a tracking system that would enable authorities to follow agricultural inputs from procurement through distribution to their final use on farms.

He said such measures would help prevent diversion, improve accountability and ensure that public spending translate into increased food production.

The agronomist further stressed that government’s interventions should be assessed by their impact on actual farmers, including increased yields, improved incomes and enhanced food security, rather than the amount of money released or the number of beneficiaries announced.

Real farmers powerless – AFAN

The Benue State chairman of the All Farmers Association of Nigeria (AFAN), Pastor Ernest Atoji, also alleged that government officials and contractors at different levels exploited farmers because they considered them powerless.

Atoji said the problems confronting farmers went beyond the diversion of government’s interventions to include fake fertilisers and other substandard agricultural inputs that could undermine productivity and increase production cost.

He lamented that despite the central role farmers play in sustaining the population, their concerns were often neglected, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation by those entrusted with supporting agricultural development.

The AFAN chairman noted that the diversion of agricultural interventions denied farmers the benefits intended to improve their livelihoods and strengthen food production.

He said the situation required urgent attention because the people who produce food often had limited influence over the policies, resources and distribution systems designed to support them.

Atoji argued that the vulnerability of farmers was particularly troubling because, unlike some other groups, they rarely resort to strikes or confrontational protests to demand their rights.

He called for stronger protection for farmers and greater accountability among officials, contractors and other individuals involved in agricultural intervention programmes.

Trapping government palliatives

The national president of the Cocoa and Plantain Farmers Association of Nigeria (CPFAN), Ondo chapter, Ayodele Ojo, alleged that some individuals who were largely absent from farming activities suddenly emerged whenever the government announced palliatives or other forms of assistance for farmers.

Describing them as people with little or no direct involvement in farming, Ojo said their influence often put them in a stronger position to access government support than organised farmers who are supposed to benefit from such interventions.

“We have unknown farmers in Ondo State who only show up when the government wants to share palliatives to farmers,” he said.

According to him, some of these individuals have connections and influence that enable them to secure a substantial share of agricultural inputs, even at the expense of recognised farmers’ associations.

“Most times, they are people who have influence even more than we who are presidents of associations,” Ojo said.

He explained that the situation had affected genuine farmers in several ways, particularly in the distribution of seedlings, agrochemicals and loans.

“Yes, this has affected us in numerous ways. We have reduced seedlings from the government. Some people have influence and have taken half of the seedlings and chemicals. Even loans for farmers are based on influence,” he said.

An agricultural expert in Akure, Badmus Animashaun, blamed the problem on government’s alleged failure to ensure that agricultural interventions reach their intended beneficiaries.

“The problem is from the government itself. They know all these unknown farmers but they bring them in to also benefit. Some are relatives or close allies. And they benefit more than farmers,” he alleged.

Animashaun said the government must introduce stricter measures to identify genuine farmers and ensure that agricultural support reached those actively engaged in farming.

“The government should know that if they want the real farmers to benefit from what they are giving out, they should scrutinise the farmers,” he said.

He urged the government to recognise registered farmers associations and establish a reliable registration system to guide the distribution of agricultural interventions.

“The government should recognise only farmers association members. Let the government also have registration of all farmers associations and recognise them alone when there are benefits and interventions,” he said.

The expert warned that allowing people who are not genuinely involved in farming to benefit from agricultural interventions at the expense of active farmers could further weaken the sector.

“If necessary benefits are not reaching the real farmers, and some unknown people are benefiting from interventions, the agricultural sector would keep depreciating. Farmers would keep getting poorer because they don’t have the necessary benefits to produce good crops,” he said.

Animashaun added that the consequences would extend beyond farmers to the wider population, particularly in terms of food availability and production.

“The society would also be affected. Enough food would not be available. The way farmers would be able to produce would be reduced,” he said.

Our correspondent in Kano reports that many people constitute themselves as portfolio farmers with the aim of receiving government’s agricultural intervention, including grants meant for real farmers.

They usually divert allocation of fertilisers, improved seeds, machinery etc through connivance with corrupt government officials and local syndicates to maximise profit.

Because of their political influence and connection, they often deceive farmers into online registration, submitting information like NIN and BVN numbers on the pretence that they would secure grants or loans to support their farming activities, but when given, such grants or interventions hardly reach the farmers.

Habu Danzaria, a businessman selling textile materials at Tarauni Local Government secretariat, told Weekend Trust that though he is not a farmer, last year he benefitted from fertiliser allocation.

His closeness to some councillors and other stakeholders gave him access to whatever intervention that came to the secretariat without necessarily being a real farmer.

“I got five bags of fertilisers last year from the local government and sold them to the end users. Whatever quantity of fertilisers you want, I can get it for you, provided you have buyers ready to pay on delivery.

“I abandoned farming after I invested over N3 million in rice farming in Bunkure Local Government Area and lost a substantial part of the investment, not to talk of gains,” Danzaria said.

A media practitioner who craves anonymity recalled how a truck of fertiliser was allocated to the Government House Press Corps. He said policemen serving in the facility were also given allocation.

The chairman of the National Tomato Growers, Processors and Marketers of Nigeria (NATPAN), Alhaji Sani Danladi Yadakwari, said the problem of “paper farmers,” whom he renamed manema (seekers) instead of manoma (real farmers), had continued to discourage real farmers, who are struggling to improve their production to make food available.

“It is worrisome that the manema are the ones getting most of the interventions and not the manoma, partly because most of them stay idle.

“However, the government is changing its approach. Only farmers who own farmlands now benefit from certain inventions. This year, for example, the government provided free tractor services throughout, but only those with farmlands benefitted,” Yadakwari said.

According to him, if such approach is applied, farmers will directly receive interventions, which will ultimately be deployed for the purpose it was provided, thereby stimulating production of enough foods, as well as agricultural growth.

He said the best way to address the problem was through identifying real farmers directly to offer intervention where necessary, while those impersonating farmers would be made to face severe sanctions.

He explained that despite concerns about their influence on prices, middlemen and the “soilless farmers” perform important functions in the agricultural value chain as many smallholder farmers lack the vehicles, capital and market connections needed to transport large quantities of produce to distant markets.

He added that the traders help to gather crops from different farms, connect farmers with buyers and arrange transportation and storage; and that without these services, farmers could face higher marketing cost and greater difficulties getting customers.

“The challenge, therefore, is not necessarily to eliminate middlemen but to ensure that farmers have enough alternatives to negotiate better prices,” he noted.

He advised that strengthening farmers cooperatives could help producers aggregate their harvests and negotiate collectively with wholesalers, processors and other large-scale buyers, adding that by doing so, the influence of “soilless farmers” and that of the middlemen would be reduced.

Farmers struggle as middlemen influence crop prices

The role of “briefcase farmers” and middlemen in the agricultural value chain has raised questions over how the value of agricultural produce is shared; and whether farmers receive a fair return for their investments or not.

Along the value chain of a crop, there are concerns about the bargaining power of farmers, particularly those who lack storage facilities, transportation and access to reliable market information.

According to a Katsina-based farmer, Malam Abdulrashid Ashiru Funtua, for many smallholder farmers, the pressure begins immediately after harvest as they need money to repay loans, pay labourers and meet household expenses.

He explained that those without adequate storage facilities may also be forced to sell quickly to avoid losses, adding that this often leaves them with little option than to accept the prices offered by buyers who have the capital and connections to purchase large quantities of the produce.

“This situation usually puts farmers at a disadvantage, especially when they do not know the prevailing prices in other markets or cannot afford to transport their crops to alternative buyers,” he said.

For Enewa Ejiga, a farmer in Ogobia community of Otukpo Local Government Area, activities of middlemen often weaken farmers’ bargaining power far beyond the diversion of government’s interventions.

“The activities of middlemen in agricultural markets have also impacted the share of the final market value that reaches farmers.

“Farmers often sell their produce immediately after harvest because they need money to meet household expenses, repay loans and prepare for the next planting season,” she said.

Ejiga contended that limited access to storage facilities, processing equipment, transportation and affordable credit can further weaken the farmers’ bargaining power.

“In such circumstances, traders who have the resources to buy, store and transport the produce may be better positioned to determine when and where crops are sold,” she posited

Another farmer, Alhaji Bala Bello, said “briefcase farmers” were gradually taking over the scene through a new method. According to him, “soilless farmers” now give money to the real farmers in advance, who pay back with farm produce instead of money immediately after harvest. He added that after harvest is usually a period when commodity processes are at their lowest level.

“These ‘briefcase farmers’ have taken advantage of the vulnerability of many farmers. They offer them cash with the agreement that the farmer would pay during the harvest period with farm produce. In many instances, the farmers are left with barely a little to depend on. And on many cases, the payment has to be carried over to the following year if the harvest is not good,” he said.

It was also revealed that the challenge facing farmers goes beyond the activities of middlemen and “soilless farmers.” The rising cost of fertilisers, seeds, chemicals, labour and transportation has increased the financial burden of farming. Insecurity in some communities and along rural routes can also disrupt production and the movement of farm produce. And when farm-gate prices fail to cover these expenses, farmers may struggle to recover their investments, even after recording good harvests.

Issues related to late distribution of inputs by the government have been identified as one of the catalysts that speed up the activities of the middlemen and the “soilless farmers”.

According to Malam Idris Babba, in many instances, farmers usually receive government’s intervention very late, prompting them to sell the inputs to these people at a very cheap price, making the whole government’s intervention project ineffective.

A Kano-based agricultural economist, Malam Basheer Ali, said a report published in October 2025 documented complaints by farmers in Katsina and other northern states about low crop prices despite good harvests, adding that inadequate storage, high production cost and limited market access were among the concerns highlighted by the report.

He explained that despite concerns about their influence on prices, middlemen perform important functions in the agricultural value chain as they help to gather crops from different farms, connect farmers with buyers and arrange transportation and storage. He said that without these services, farmers could face higher marketing cost and greater difficulties getting customers.

“The challenge, therefore, is not necessarily to eliminate middlemen but ensure that farmers have enough alternatives to negotiate better prices,” he said.

Basheer advised that strengthening farmers cooperatives could help producers aggregate their harvests and negotiate collectively with wholesalers, processors and other large-scale buyers, adding that by doing so, the influence of the “soilless farmers” and that of the middlemen would be reduced.

To this end, agricultural experts like Dr Teryima Iorlamen have stressed the need for accountability, governments to strengthen beneficiary verification, procurement oversight and the monitoring of agricultural interventions.

Iorlamen said the authorities should establish clear criteria for selecting beneficiaries, verify that applicants have access to farmland and conduct follow-up visits to confirm that agricultural inputs are being used for their intended purposes.

He also urged the government to collaborate with credible farming organisations and agricultural businesses to identify legitimate producers and establish transparent systems for distributing support.

Iorlamen maintained that agricultural programmes would achieve better results when assistance was tied to verifiable farming activities and when officials were held accountable for the diversion of public resources.