A National Youth Policy should do more than describe the challenges young people face.
It should make clear what the government will do, who will do it, how it will be financed, how progress will be measured, and how young people will know whether commitments are being delivered.
That was the starting point for the Civil Society Dialogue on the Zero Draft of Nigeria’s National Youth Policy 2026–2030, convened by the Network of Youth for Sustainable Initiative (NGYouthSDGs) in partnership with ActionAid Nigeria in Abuja, with participants joining both in person and online.
The dialogue brought together civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations, youth representatives, executive directors, and other stakeholders to critically review the Zero Draft ahead of national validation.
Why this conversation mattered
Nigeria’s young population is too large and too diverse for youth policy to be developed as a document that is simply approved and launched.
Young people experience policy through schools and universities, workplaces and businesses, health facilities, communities, digital platforms, and public institutions.
The question, therefore, is not only whether a policy identifies the right issues.
It is whether the policy provides a credible pathway from commitment to implementation.
This was the lens through which participants reviewed the Zero Draft.
Is the policy relevant to young Nigerians in 2026?
The broad response was yes.
Participants recognised that the Zero Draft responds to many of the issues facing young Nigerians. At the same time, they identified areas where the policy needs to become more responsive to a rapidly changing environment.
Among the issues raised were:
- the changing world of work;
- artificial intelligence and digital transformation;
- digital literacy and access;
- climate change;
- informal employment;
- skills development;
- mental health;
- gender-related needs;
- disability inclusion; and
- economic empowerment.
Participants also called for stronger gender mainstreaming across the policy.
The discussion noted that gender is addressed within a dedicated thematic area of the Zero Draft but is not identified among its cross-cutting enablers. Participants considered this an opportunity to strengthen how gender is reflected across the policy rather than treating it as a standalone issue.
Participation must go beyond consultation
The dialogue also examined whether young people’s participation in the policy process has been sufficiently meaningful and inclusive.
Participants recognised that many issues raised by young people through consultations are reflected in the Zero Draft.
However, questions remain about whether some experiences are sufficiently visible.
Menstrual health and access to sanitary products were among the issues raised.
Disability inclusion also generated different views. Some participants considered the draft’s provisions adequate, while others argued that disability should be more explicitly integrated across economic participation, entrepreneurship, innovation, and employment.
This reflects an important principle for youth policy: inclusion should not only be about who benefits from a policy, but also whose experiences shape its design.
Implementation and financing: the hardest questions
Perhaps the strongest concerns during the dialogue related to implementation and financing.
The Zero Draft contains a range of interventions. Participants raised the following questions:
a. Who is responsible?
b. What will the implementation cost?
c. Where will the money come from?
d. How will funds flow across levels of government?
e. Who will monitor expenditure?
These questions are important as they determine whether the National Youth Policy becomes an operational framework or remains primarily a statement of ambition.
Participants proposed stronger financing arrangements, including dedicated youth-development budget lines, clearer responsibilities across federal, state, and local government, greater visibility of youth-related expenditure across ministries, and stronger investment in productive sectors capable of creating sustainable employment.
One participant captured the concern particularly well:
“We cannot continue training young people for decent jobs without investing in the industries that will create sustainable jobs for them.”
This is an important shift in thinking.
Youth employment cannot be addressed through training alone if the wider economy is not generating sufficient productive opportunities.
The accountability question
The next question during the dialogue was what happens after adoption?
Participants welcomed the fact that the Zero Draft contains a more structured Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, Research, and Learning framework than the previous policy.
But they argued that monitoring must go beyond surveys.
A credible accountability system requires clear targets, indicators, institutional responsibilities, public reporting, and mechanisms for verifying progress.
The review also identified a specific issue in the draft itself.
The MEARL framework proposes a baseline evaluation for 2025–2026, a process evaluation for 2026–2027, a mid-term evaluation for 2029–2030, and an end-term evaluation for 2034–2035.
If the policy period is 2026–2030, why does the proposed end-term evaluation fall several years after the policy ends?
An evaluation that concludes after the policy period raises questions about how its findings would support course correction during implementation or inform the transition to the next policy cycle.
This is precisely the kind of issue that should be resolved before the policy is finalised.
What can the NYIF teach us about youth-policy accountability?
Participants also discussed the Nigeria Youth Investment Fund (NYIF) as an example of why significant public investment in young people requires strong accountability.
The original NYIF was established as a ₦75 billion youth financing programme.
Under the current administration, the Federal Government approved ₦110 billion in 2024 to revitalise the NYIF and subsequently established a Project Management Office to oversee implementation.
The Federal Ministry of Youth Development’s current Youth Initiative platform lists ₦110 billion as committed to the NYIF and describes the programme as “Revamped.”
The point raised during the dialogue was not to make an overall judgement about the current NYIF.
It was to ask a broader question:
When substantial public resources are committed to young people, what information should citizens be able to see?
Participants pointed to the need for transparent reporting on allocations, disbursements, beneficiaries, implementation progress, outputs and outcomes, alongside independent verification where appropriate.
This principle should extend beyond the NYIF.
It should become part of how Nigeria approaches youth-development financing more broadly.
From consultation to collective action
The dialogue was not intended to produce another set of recommendations that disappears after the meeting.
The broader process is:
Consultation → Analysis → Consensus → Collective Position → Policy Influence → Accountability.
The dialogue generated a substantial range of recommendations across health, employment, education, digital transformation, climate, political participation, disability inclusion, financing and accountability.
However, participants did not complete a formal ranking exercise during the session.
Rather than create an artificial consensus, NGYouthSDGs will take the recommendations back through a follow-up process with participants.
The objective is to develop:
10–15 priority civil society recommendations
3–5 Civil Society Non-Negotiables
An initial Civil Society Accountability Agenda
These will inform the final Civil Society Position to be submitted to the Federal Ministry of Youth Development ahead of national validation.
What meaningful youth participation should look like
For us at NGYouthSDGs, this process reinforces an important principle.
Meaningful youth participation is not simply about inviting young people to a consultation.
It is about creating a pathway through which young people’s experiences and evidence can influence policy design, implementation, and accountability.
That means asking difficult questions.
It means allowing disagreement.
It means being honest about where consensus exists, and where it does not.
And it means staying engaged after the policy is adopted.
The National Youth Policy should not only tell young Nigerians what the government intends to do for them.
It should make it possible for young Nigerians to see what is being done, understand who is responsible, track the resources committed, and participate in holding institutions accountable.
That is the standard we believe the National Youth Policy 2026–2030 should aim for.
And the work does not end with validation.
The real test begins with implementation.
