President Buhari
President Muhammadu Buhari on Wednesday signed into law the N9.6 trillion 2018 budget during which he made the allegation of budget padding against the National Assembly, which has been the bane of budget implementation in Nigeria. Group Politics Editor, TAIWO ADISA, examines the president’s frustrations and the argument of the legislators.
ON Wednesday June 20, President Muhammadu Buhari opened, yet again, one of the sore points in executive/ legislature relationship in the Fourth Republic, which is the contention over the power of appropriation.
The president, signing the 2018 budget into law, seven months after presenting the same on November 7, 2017 said that the National Assembly tinkered with the budget document and returned what was clearly different from what he presented.
According to him, the lawmakers reduced figures in the subheads and cut assigned fees to projects while introducing projects of their own, a situation he said had made the implementation of the budget difficult.
President Buhari practically put the National Assembly to the sword in his budget signing speech when he said that the lawmakers took no notice of his efforts to manage the growing recurrent expenditure when they increased their own budget and other recurrent subheads of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
He said: “As I mentioned during the presentation of the 2018 Appropriation Bill, we intend to use the 2018 Budget to consolidate the achievements of previous budgets and deliver on Nigeria’s Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) 2017-2020.
“It is in this regard that I am concerned about some of the changes that the National Assembly has made to the budget proposals that I presented. The logic behind the constitutional direction that budgets should be proposed by the Executive is that, it is the Executive that knows and defines its policies and projects.
“Unfortunately, that has not been given much regard in what has been sent to me. The National Assembly made cuts amounting to N347 billion in the allocations to 4,700 projects submitted to them for consideration and introduced 6,403 projects of their own amounting to N578 billion.
“Many of the projects cut are critical and may be difficult, if not impossible, to implement with the reduced allocation. Some of the new projects inserted by the National Assembly have not been properly conceptualised, designed and cost and will therefore be difficult to execute.
“Furthermore, many of these new projects introduced by the National Assembly have been added to the budgets of most MDAs with no consideration for institutional capacity to execute them or the incremental recurrent expenditure that may be required.”
He stated that some of the projects introduced by the National Assembly relate to matters that are within the responsibility of the states and local governments.
He gave examples of some of the projects “unduly” touched by the lawmakers as including the counter-part funding for the Mambilla Power Plant, second Niger bridge/ancillary roads, the East-West road, Bonny-Bodo road, Lagos-Ibadan expressway and Itakpe-Ajaokuta rail project. He said these projects were cut by an aggregate of N11.5 billion.
He also mentioned the provisions for some ongoing critical infrastructure projects in the FCT, Abuja especially major arterial roads and the mass transit rail project, which he said were cut by a total of N7.5 billion.
Buhari also listed other reductions which he said affected funds for the rehabilitation and additional security measures for the United Nations building meant for execution by the Federal Capital Territory Administration; provisions for strategic health intervention programmes and provision for security infrastructure in the 104 Unity Schools across the country.
He also mentioned the cut in the provision for construction of the terminal building at Enugu Airport, reduced from N2 billion to 500 million and the Take-off Grant for the Maritime University in Delta State, from N5 billion to N3.4 billion.
According to him, some 70 new road projects were inserted into the budget of the Federal Ministry of Power, Works and Housing, regretting that to accommodate the new roads, some of the amounts allocated to some strategic major roads were cut by the National Assembly.
He stated: “Another area of concern is the increase by the National Assembly of the provisions for Statutory Transfers by an aggregate of N73.96 billion. Most of these increases are for recurrent expenditure at a time we are trying to keep down the cost of governance.”
But the outburst by the president came as a surprise to close watchers of the National Assembly, especially gong by submissions by the Senate and House Appropriation Committee Chairman while presenting the budget that the changes made to the budget were done in conjunction with the executive.
It appears that the lawmakers had increased the oil price benchmark in the budget from $45 per barrel to $52 and simply applied the excess figures to new projects submitted by some MDAs and the constituency projects.
But the contention this time is not hanging in isolation. It is a long standing issue. The feud between the National Assembly and the Executive over preparation and passage of budget appears an endless feud this Republic has faced since inception. In the days of President Olusegun Obasanjo, the lawmakers had it rough. Obasanjo would insist on assenting to only the budget that conformed to what was submitted to the lawmakers. The lawmakers on their own side had insisted that the assembly was not a rubber stamp institution and thus had the power to tinker with budget estimates submitted by the president.
The situation under Obasanjo degenerated to the point that the executive started doing what they called selective execution of projects. The executive would keep its own copy of the estimates it submitted to the chambers and only executive those projects contained in that original copy whenever the budget was eventually signed. Even at that, budget implementation was low in as the procurement processes were allowed to drag.
Senate Deputy Leader, Senator Bala Ibn Na’Allah, who was at the budget signing ceremony attempted a reply to the president when he was accosted by the media. He said that the National Assembly would not have done its job if it only approved what had been sent to it by the executive adding that the assembly is meant to cross-check the estimates and approve what they believe are good for the country.
What the law says
Section 81(1&2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended set out the provisions on the preparation and passage of the budget. The section mandates the executive to prepare estimates and send the same to the National Assembly. The estimates which are to be contained in a bill, usually referred to as Money Bill, will then be worked on by the lawmakers and passed after the third reading. Recall, however, that the same constitution has empowered the National Assembly to regulate its own procedure. The lawmakers thereafter inferred that the powers to regulate their procedure enables them to tinker with all bills, including Money Bills.
Section 81 (1) reads: “The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year.”
81 (2) “The heads of expenditure contained in the estimates (other than expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation by this Constitution) shall be included in a bill, to be known as an Appropriation Bill, providing for the issue from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure and the appropriation of those sums for the purposes specified therein.”
In line with the provisions of the Constitution as above, the legislature has always insisted that the estimates submitted by the president cannot be sacrosanct and untouchable.
Former Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriation, Senator Iyiola Omisore had, during the crisis periods on the budget in 6th Senate, argued that the executive must allow the legislature to execute the “power of the purse,” adding that the entire budget must be made to address all constituencies in the country since, according to him, the budget in its entirety is a collection of constituency projects. He declared that the budget as a collection of constituency projects arose from the United States Congress, where each lawmaker must get something to point to as belonging to his constituency.
Senate Tackles the President
The Senate, in its response to the homily from Buhari had reminded him that the power to tinker with the budget was donated to them by the Constitution. Senate Spokesman, Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, in a statement late on Wednesday said that it was not true that the National Assembly made alterations to the budget without recourse to the executive. He said that the Senate was in agreement with the House of Representatives in a statement issued earlier in the day which gave detailed response to the president’s allegations.
House replies Buhari
House of Representatives’ spokesman, Hon. Abdulrazak Namdas, in his response declared that the lawmakers were not constituted as rubber stamp of the executive. He declared that the chamber was right to have tinkered with the 2018 budget, adding however that the lawmakers would welcome a supplementary budget if the need arises.
He said: “The budget is usually a proposal by the Executive to the National Assembly, which the latter is given the constitutional power of appropriation to alter, make additions, cost or reduce as it may deem necessary,” adding that the legislature is not expected to just rubber-stamp executive proposals and return the same to the president.
Speaker of the House, Hon Yakubu Dogara
He further stated: “We are on the same page with Mr. President in his desire to return our budget cycle to January-December. By the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA), 2007, the budget estimates should be with the National Assembly around September of the year. In the case of the 2018 budget, the estimates came behind schedule in November 2017, even though this attempt was seen as one of the earliest in recent years. Going forward, we urge the Executive to speed up the reporting time to the National Assembly by complying fully with the FRA.
“Besides, there were delays that should be blamed on the heads of MDAs. Mr. President will recall that he had to direct ministers and heads of agencies to go to the National Assembly to defend their proposals. This came after the National Assembly had persistently raised the alarm over the non-cooperative attitudes of these government officials. On this grounds, the delay in passing the budget cannot be blamed on the legislature.
On the claim of new projects in budget, he said: “On this aspect, we have to remind Mr. President that we are representatives of our people and wish to state that even the common man deserves a mention in the budget by including projects that will directly affect his life positively. Some of the projects designed by the executive, as high-sounding as their names suggest, do not meet the needs of the common man.
“National Assembly budget. Before 2015, the budget of the National Assembly was N150billion for several years. It was cut down to N120bn in 2015 and further down to N115bn in 2016. In 2017, the budget was N125bn and N139.5bn in 2018. This means that the budget of the National Assembly is still far below the N150bn in the years before 2015.
“While we commend Mr. President for a good working relationship, we also wish to state that we have a job to do, which requires adequate funding as well. The additional costs and projects to the budget were done in good faith for the sole purpose of improving the lives of Nigerians.
“We welcome the proposal by Mr. President to forward a supplementary budget to the National Assembly to address other areas of pressing demands and commend the President and the entire executive arm for a cordial working relationship.”
A budget of controversy…?
But the main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had berated the president over his claims on the budget. The party said the controversy thrown up during the signing of the budget was simply because the president lacks the capacity to implement the budget.
PDP spokesman, Kola Ologbondiyan, in a statement in Abuja, said Buhari’s outbursts were due to the lack of capacity to run a development-oriented economy as desired by Nigerians.
“Nigerians and the business community worldwide were stunned when our dear president, in his speech, while signing the budget, exhibited unpardonable ignorance of the dynamics of international best practices in macroeconomics management, an indication that our economy is in very bad hands.
“President Buhari, in picking holes on items that would directly impact on economic productivity, infrastructural advancement, rural development as well as those that would provide urgent palliatives to the plights of Nigerians, showed his aversion to developmental economy as well as insensitivity to the welfare of our citizens,” the party stated while accusing the APC government of insensitivity and lack of capacity to govern the country’s affairs.
History of budget upheavals
From the Obasanjo government days to the present, no single year has passed without a budget brouhaha. The story of budget crisis got to a head under the late President Umaru Yar’Adua who complained about a number of insertions into the budget. He refused to assent the budget and was said to have been advised by his Attorney-General to approach the Supreme Court for judicial pronouncements on Section 81 of the Constitution. The contention that year, 2009 was whether the lawmakers could introduce constituency projects into the budget for execution in the constituencies. The budget controversy crept up in April and it was reasoned that going to court at the time could cause a shutdown in government operation as the window for spending outside the budget would terminate in June of the year. The administration then resorted to political solution, which eventually legalised the issue of constituency projects. It was agreed that the lawmakers would have a fund set aside in the budget for execution of constituency projects year in year out.
Adeosun
But that did not resolve the budget imbroglio as fresh challenges soon cropped up even running intothe era of President Goodluck Jonathan.
The controversy, however, appears to have grown bigger under the present government.
Hon. Abdulmumin Jibril was Appropriation Chairman of the House of Representatives at the inception of the 8th assembly in June 2015. He was an influential member of the chamber in the earlier assembly and had sought to emerge as the Speaker of the current assembly. As a compromise, he was offered the Appropriation portfolio.
After the 2016 budget, however, Jibril made an allegation of “padding” allegedly of the 2016 budget. The development pitched him against the chamber and the Senate as well. He was investigated by his colleagues and sent packing for a year. He only recently regained his seat on the floor of the House.
Since the brouhaha over the 2016 budget, the Buhari administration has never really found it easy getting budgets passed through the National Assembly.
But the leadership of the Senate and the House of Representatives denied the allegation of padding in 2016 and have always denied the same. Speaker Yakubu Dogara said that there was nothing like padding, since the lawmakers were entitled to tinker with the budget.
The issues with budget passage this time cannot entirely be seen as a creation of the National Assembly. While in the previous administrations, the contention between the lawmakers and the executive was tinkering with budget estimates, the cooperation and collaboration needed to achieve consensus over budgets have been lacking in the current administration.
The NASS, stakeholders believe, is losing its relevance altogether under the current administration, as it has never happened that the chambers would issue unheeded calls on the MDAs to appear for the defence of the budget. In the process leading to the passage of the 2018 budget, the President himself had to issue directives through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) to compel MDAs to appeal before the Senate and the House to defend their budgets. Perhaps, the rivalry between the executive and the legislature over power tussle in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) appears to have taken its toll on the current executive office holders as this era has recorded the most of disobedience to the legislative chambers by executive office holders.
A number of members of the executive have instead of appearing before the chambers resorted to courts to tie the hands of the legislators, even as the president looked the other way.
If a President fails to midwife appropriate consultations between the executive organs and the legislature, it is practically impossible to have a seamless budget session.
Investigations revealed that in trying to smoothen the budget passage session this time, the Senate and the House of Representatives have overlooked some aspects of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which provided timeless for budget actions. For instance, since the inception of the Buhari administration, the National Assembly has not insisted on passing the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the Fiscal Strategy Paper (FSP) before the budget is presented. In previous administrations, the lawmakers first ensured that the MTEF and FSP were passed before the President could present the budget. According to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the MTEF and FSP would form the foundations upon which the budget is laid and without passing them through the legislature, the budget cannot become a reality.
The current assembly has, however, accommodated the Buhari administration to the extent that MTEF/FSP were only dumped on them alongside the budget estimates.
What that means in practical terms is that the legislature has the dual responsibility of rewriting the entire budget and also making its own inputs. In essence, it means that since the parametres for the budget are contained in the MTEF and FSP, whatever figures submitted by the president before the passage of the documents by the lawmakers simply become “dead on arrival.”
And that has also created its own challenge, the timing for the passage of the budget is prolonged. Whereas the public would be counting November 7 2017 as the date the President submitted the budget document to a Joint Session of the National Assembly, in practical terms, the budget document cannot be touched until the lawmakers passed the MTEF and FSP late in December 2017. Therefore, the lawmakers only commenced real work on the budget estimates in January 2018, the date the President intended to start its implementation.
Senator Udoma Udo Udoma
Besides, though the president mentioned over 6,000 projects introduced by the National Assembly, he did not also tell Nigerians that most of the said projects are constituency projects which have been agreed in principle with the executive.
The error in the process appears the fact that rather than standardise the process of implementation and approval of Constituency projects, the executive leaves its design and approval to the whims of the lawmakers and then turn around to claim that projects within the purview of states and local governments were included in the budget.
Mischief of the Powers
Besides sticking to the law and the rules, there are unstated issues that also afflict budget process. Some sources called this mischief of the powers. This is widespread and cut across the executive and the legislature. A former Appropriation Chairman in the 5th Senate once told this writer “you cannot understand this budget.” What he meant is that so much mischief is written into the document that it will always confuse the ordinary eye.
Indeed, the acclaimed technocrats who write the budget would always want their mischief to pass, whereas the National Assembly members would detect some and also include their own. It thus become an interplay of mischiefs and the president could be made a pawn of that interchange, a legislative technocrat said.
Some sources said that a number of technocrats in the executive prefer that the two arms are perpetually in conflict over budgets so as to hide some inadequacies and mischief.
For instance, it was gathered that the leadership of the National Assembly held series of meetings with members of the economic team of the present administration including the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Budget, the Budget office and Debt Management Office days before the 2018 budget was ratified on the floor of the chambers. Senate President Bukola Saraki was said to have midwifed many of the meetings, which did not highlight any of the contentions raised by President Buhari on Wednesday.
“It was shocking to Senator Saraki and Speaker Dogara that after series of house clearing meetings with those believed to be managing the economy, the budget was passed in good faith but then, the President still landed the blow. At the end of those meetings, all the parties were happy that the budget was handled to the best of ability of the lawmakers but then something went missing and it showed in the President’s speech,” a source in the legislature said.
Any end in sight?
It appears the only way out is to ensure consultations. Speaker Dogara mentioned that issue during the Joint sitting on November 7, 2017 when he said that the process leading to the presentation of the 2018 budget was the least consultative. It is difficult to yield a less rancorous process if consultations don’t take place between the executive and the legislature.
Since the budget is the most important instrument by which a government can make impact on the people, only the adoption on inter-dependence of powers rather than strict separation of powers can help the executive out.
No comments:
Post a Comment