In this piece, Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka Our, Managing Editor writes that the growing complexity of Nigeria’s national budget and the increasing demand for transparency in public expenditure have placed new responsibilities on parliamentary journalists, who are expected not only to report legislative proceedings but also to help citizens understand how public resources are proposed, allocated and spent.
It was against this background that Adeola Ademokoya and Kabiru Kama of Mass Media LLC, Houston, Texas, with operations in Abuja, delivered a presentation on “AI for Parliamentary Media and Public Accountability” at the 2026 Capacity Building Workshop organised by members of the Senate Press Corps (SPC) at the National Assembly, Abuja.
The workshop, held on Monday, had as its theme: “Leveraging Legislative Oversight and Media Collaboration to Safeguard the National Budget from Unlawful Insertions.”
They told members of the parliamentary press that Artificial Intelligence should not be regarded as a replacement for journalists, legislators or professional human judgment, but as a tool capable of improving document analysis, research, questioning, reporting and public communication.
According to them, the national budget is more than a collection of figures, tables and estimates. It represents public resources earmarked for roads, schools, hospitals, security, employment, infrastructure, salaries and other areas of national development.
They therefore linked budget accountability to public confidence, transparency and the ability of citizens to understand how government resources are planned and utilised.
From reporting proceedings to explaining their meaning
Ademokoya described parliamentary journalism as a specialised area of reporting involving the Senate, House of Representatives, committees, motions, bills, budget defence sessions, public hearings, oversight visits, press briefings and legislative debates.
He argued that the responsibility of the parliamentary journalist should go beyond reproducing what lawmakers or government officials said.
Rather, the journalist should help citizens understand what legislative decisions mean and how they affect the public.
This, he said, is one area where AI could provide useful assistance.
According to the presentation, AI can assist journalists in summarising lengthy budget documents, comparing different versions of financial proposals, identifying changes in figures, highlighting repeated or vague descriptions, generating interview questions and translating technical budget language into simpler explanations.
It could also help journalists convert complex parliamentary matters into newspaper stories, radio scripts, television talking points, WhatsApp messages and social-media content.
But Ademokoya repeatedly stressed that AI-generated information should not automatically become published journalism.
“The journalist remains responsible,” was one of the central messages of the presentation.
The quality of the question matters
A significant part of the presentation focused on the use of effective prompts when working with AI systems.
They demonstrated how a general request such as “explain the budget” could produce a broad response, while a more specific instruction could direct an AI system towards particular areas of concern.
They suggested that a parliamentary journalist could ask an AI system to review an uploaded budget document and identify unclear project descriptions, missing locations, possible duplication, unusual figures and questions that could appropriately be raised during a budget defence.
The suggested approach, however, was not to instruct AI to make accusations.
Instead, the journalist should use AI to identify issues requiring clarification and then independently verify the information.
The presentation consequently drew a distinction between AI-assisted journalism and AI-driven journalism.
In the first, the journalist remains in charge, using technology to improve efficiency. In the second, there is a risk that unverified machine-generated information could be accepted as fact.
Unlawful insertions and the verification question
The issue of alleged unlawful insertions into budget proposals was central to the workshop.
They noted that problematic issues could potentially be hidden in lengthy and technically complex documents through vague project descriptions, duplicated items, unexplained changes in figures, allocations without clear locations or projects whose details require further clarification.
However, he cautioned that the identification of an unusual budget entry should not automatically be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing.
For journalism, the process should begin with reading and questioning, followed by verification, requests for official responses and balanced reporting.
That approach is particularly important when dealing with public officials or institutions because AI can produce convincing language even when the underlying information is incomplete or inaccurate.
Five practical uses for parliamentary journalists
The presentation identified several areas where AI could assist parliamentary media professionals.
These include document summarisation, budget comparison, question development, public explanation and documentation/organisation.
AI could, for example, compare two versions of a budget and highlight newly introduced items, removed projects, changed figures, duplicated language or descriptions requiring clarification.
It could also help prepare professional questions for lawmakers, government officials and budget officers.
Another application is public communication. Technical financial information could be converted into a 60-second radio script, a television explanation, a newspaper paragraph or a short social-media message.
They also introduced the idea of an AI Budget Oversight Assistant, with participants encouraged to access additional materials through a QR code provided during the workshop.
AI and newsroom collaboration
The presentation also extended beyond individual journalists to newsroom collaboration.
AI-assisted workflows, according to the presentation, could help parliamentary journalists organise source documents, budget items, questions asked during hearings, responses received, pending clarifications, agencies involved, committee references, publication status and follow-up dates.
Such a system could potentially improve institutional memory and coordination among journalists covering complex legislative matters.
AI could also support document-based chatbots, dashboards, media monitoring, translation and training.
The speakers noted that translation tools could help make public information accessible in Nigerian languages, including Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba, although such translations would still require appropriate human review.
The dangers behind the technology
The presentation was not an unqualified endorsement of AI.
Participants were warned that careless use of AI could produce misinformation, false confidence, reputational damage and fabricated material.
Among the specific cautions were that journalists should not publish unverified AI-generated claims, manufacture accusations, fabricate evidence, create fake statements attributed to public officials or upload confidential documents to unsafe public AI platforms without proper authorisation.
The speakers also stressed that AI should not be used to manipulate citizens.
The warning is particularly relevant to parliamentary journalism because errors in reporting public officials, budget figures or legislative decisions can have consequences beyond the newsroom.
The journalist remains the gatekeeper
Perhaps the strongest message from the presentation was that technological sophistication does not eliminate editorial responsibility.
AI may summarise, compare, organise, suggest and flag issues, but it cannot remove the journalist’s obligation to verify information, seek responses and exercise editorial judgment.
The presenters therefore encouraged journalists to see themselves as the gatekeepers between information systems and the public.
The challenge is consequently not simply whether Nigerian parliamentary journalists will use AI, but whether they will develop the skills and ethical safeguards required to use it responsibly.
For a media environment increasingly dominated by speed, data and digital platforms, the future may belong neither to journalism without AI nor to AI without journalism.
It may instead depend on how effectively trained journalists combine technological tools with verification, professional ethics and independent editorial judgment.
