Nigeria’s women and girls hit hardest by British and US funding cuts, committee hears

**Lead**

British and American funding cuts are having a devastating impact on women and girls in Nigeria, parliamentarians have been told, with vital services for maternal health, education and gender-based violence support facing severe disruption. Appearing before a parliamentary committee, experts and aid workers described a funding landscape in which the most vulnerable are bearing the heaviest burden, as the UK and the US scale back development assistance in the region.

**Context**

The United Kingdom has long been considered a key donor to Nigeria, channelling support through bilateral programmes and multilateral agencies into health systems, girls’ education and humanitarian relief. The United States has similarly played a central role, with agencies such as USAID funding large-scale initiatives across northern Nigeria, where poverty and insecurity are most acute. In recent months, however, both governments have moved to restrict overseas spending, citing tightening budgets, shifting domestic priorities and a broader reappraisal of foreign aid commitments. The result, according to witnesses appearing before the committee, is that women and girls in some of Nigeria’s poorest communities have lost access to shelters, legal assistance, safe delivery services and school places.

Aid organisations working in the country have reported that programmes once considered essential are now being frozen or wound down altogether. Among those affected are clinics that provide emergency obstetric care, community centres that offer psychosocial support to survivors of sexual violence, and education projects that gave adolescent girls some measure of safety and hope. Witnesses stressed that these are not peripheral services but basic protections that many Nigerian women depend on to survive. Without them, they warned, the gains made over the past two decades in maternal mortality reduction and female school enrolment could be reversed.

One particular concern raised during the session was the cumulative effect of simultaneous cuts from London and Washington. For years, the two donors have often worked in complementary fashion, with US funding supporting large-scale infrastructure and procurement while British money focused on technical assistance and grassroots empowerment. The new funding squeeze means that both layers of support are being pulled away at the same time, leaving gaps that neither the Nigerian federal government nor local charities can adequately fill. Witnesses made clear that while Abuja retains a responsibility to protect its citizens, state capacity remains uneven, particularly in rural and conflict-affected areas.

**Analysis**

These funding decisions are not neutral technical adjustments; they are political choices about whose lives are considered worth protecting. In Nigeria, the burden of economic hardship and insecurity falls hardest on women and girls, who already contend with high rates of poverty, child marriage, and limited access to justice. When international aid is withdrawn, that burden does not simply disappear — it is transferred to local community networks that are already stretched to breaking point. The committee heard that women’s organisations, many of them funded by small grants from international donors, are now being forced to close their doors or turn away people in desperate need. This is not merely a financial crisis; it is a protection crisis for some of the most marginalised people in the world.

The wider implications extend beyond Nigeria. The UK and the US have often presented themselves as defenders of women’s rights and human dignity on the global stage. Reducing support for programmes that rescue women from violence, keep girls in school, and prevent maternal deaths undercuts that position and weakens the credibility of future diplomatic engagement. It also creates an opening for other actors, including those with less progressive agendas, to present themselves as more reliable partners in Africa. The committee’s hearing should serve as a reminder that budget lines in Whitehall and Washington have direct consequences for real people thousands of miles away — often for women and girls who have no voice in those decisions.

**A way forward**

It remains to be seen whether the government will respond to the evidence presented by adjusting its funding priorities or by seeking alternative mechanisms to support Nigerian women and girls. Some witnesses called for a more targeted approach, in which limited funds are directed towards the most life-saving and grassroots-connected programmes, rather than spread thinly across a wide portfolio. Others suggested that the UK should work more closely with Nigerian civil society and state governments, bypassing some of the overhead-heavy contractors that have faltered in recent years. Whatever the solution, the core principle should remain: the value of the UK’s partnership with Nigeria cannot be measured solely in pounds and pence, but in the security it affords to those who have least.

**Fontes**

This article is based on testimony and evidence presented to the parliamentary committee, as reported by official records and reputable news outlets covering the session. Public statements from aid organisations and development agencies active in Nigeria were also used to corroborate the information. No confidential sources were consulted.

FORTIS NEWS — Opinion