Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly finding its way into newsrooms, government communication and public-information systems. But as the technology enters Nigeria’s parliamentary media space, a more fundamental question is emerging: can AI improve accountability without weakening the human judgment on which responsible journalism depends?
That question was at the centre of a presentation by Adeola Ademokoya and Kabiru Kama of Mass Media LLC, Houston, Texas, and its Abuja operations, at the 2026 Capacity Building Workshop organised by members of the Senate Press Corps (SPC) at the National Assembly on Monday.
The workshop, themed “Leveraging Legislative Oversight and Media Collaboration to Safeguard the National Budget from Unlawful Insertions,” examined the relationship between legislative oversight, the media and emerging technology.
Their presentations argued that AI could provide parliamentary journalists with tools for examining lengthy budget documents, comparing different versions of proposals, identifying areas requiring clarification and converting technical information into language ordinary citizens can understand,writes Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka, Our Managing Editor.
The opportunity
There is an obvious practical attraction.
National budget documents can be lengthy, technical and divided across ministries, departments, agencies and legislative committees. A journalist working under deadline pressure may have limited time to examine thousands of pages of information.
AI systems can potentially reduce the time required to locate specific information within large documents.
A journalist could ask an AI system to compare two budget versions and identify changes in project descriptions or figures. Another prompt could request a summary of a particular allocation, its implementing agency and location, where available.
Used as a research aid, such technology could help journalists ask more precise questions during budget defence sessions. It could also improve public communication by turning technical budget terminology into simpler explanations for newspapers, radio, television and digital platforms.
But efficiency is not verification
This is where the strongest caution from the presentation becomes important.
An AI system can identify a potentially unusual figure, duplicated description or unexplained change. It cannot, by itself, establish that an unlawful act has occurred.
That distinction is critical
An unusual budget item may require explanation without necessarily being evidence of corruption or unlawful insertion. A duplicated description could result from a legitimate administrative reason, a drafting error or another explanation.
Consequently, AI can potentially help identify questions, but the journalist still has to establish facts. That requires consulting original documents, checking official records, seeking responses from relevant authorities and presenting competing explanations where necessary.
The risk of convincing errors
AI’s usefulness comes with a corresponding risk: it can produce confident-sounding material that may be inaccurate.
For parliamentary journalism, the consequences can be significant.
A fabricated quotation attributed to a senator, an incorrect budget figure or an unsupported allegation published as fact can damage reputations and mislead citizens.
The presentation therefore warned against publishing AI outputs without verification and against using AI to manufacture accusations or evidence.
It also cautioned journalists against uploading confidential documents into public AI platforms without proper authorisation.
These warnings highlight an important issue: the more powerful AI becomes, the greater the need for professional controls around its use.
Can AI weaken journalistic independence?
There is another issue that deserves attention.
If journalists increasingly depend on AI-generated summaries and interpretations, there is a possibility that the journalist could become less inclined to examine the original material.
That would reverse the intended purpose of the technology
AI should save time for journalists to conduct better journalism, rather than become a substitute for reading, questioning and independent verification.
The presentation itself recognised this tension by repeatedly stressing that the journalist, editor and institution remain responsible for published material.
Media collaboration and institutional memory
The workshop also explored a potentially constructive use of AI: collaboration.
Parliamentary journalists covering the same issue could use structured digital systems to organise documents, questions, responses, outstanding clarifications, agencies involved and follow-up assignments.
Such a system could help reduce information loss and improve continuity, particularly when reporters change beats or when complex budget stories require months of follow-up.
AI-assisted dashboards and document systems could also help news organisations monitor legislative issues and public concerns.
The public-interest test
The ultimate test, however, should not be whether AI is technologically impressive.
The more important question is whether its use improves the quality of information available to citizens.
If AI helps journalists discover relevant documents faster, formulate clearer questions and explain complicated public finances more effectively, it can potentially strengthen parliamentary reporting.
If it encourages journalists to publish machine-generated material without verification, it could have the opposite effect.
The difference lies largely in human oversight
What the workshop ultimately suggests
The presentation at the National Assembly offered neither a complete solution to budget accountability nor evidence that AI can independently detect unlawful budget insertions.
Rather, it presented AI as a potential support mechanism for professionals already equipped with journalistic judgment.
That distinction is important
Technology can help journalists locate information. It cannot replace the obligation to determine whether the information is accurate. It can identify a discrepancy. It cannot automatically explain its cause. It can produce a question. It cannot replace the journalist’s responsibility to seek an answer. And it can generate a story. It cannot take responsibility for the consequences of publishing it.
For parliamentary journalism, therefore, the emerging challenge is not simply adopting AI. It is developing clear professional rules for its use while preserving verification, editorial independence, confidentiality and accountability. The message from the workshop was ultimately straightforward: AI can strengthen the parliamentary press only when human judgment remains in control.
