A COALITION of civil society groups under the aegis of Nigerian Civil Society Economy Action and the Budget Office of the Federation have disagreed over constitutional violations in the 2024 and 2025 appropriations.
While the CSOs argued that there was a constitutional breach in the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts, the Budget Office of the Federation insisted that President Bola Tinubu and the National Assembly did not err in their actions.
In a statement obtained by The ICIR on Thursday, January 8, and signed by Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), PLSI, BudgiT and PRIMORG, the CSOs posited that the re-enacted and repealed appropriation acts lacked transparency and were opaque in their execution, thereby creating room for constitutional violation.
“These breaches raise fundamental questions about the management of public revenues and expenditure and the responsiveness of the executive and the legislature to the fiscal stipulations of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended and the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
“We recall that section 81 of the Constitution explicitly provides for the submission of expenditure proposals by the president to NASS and prior approval of the NASS before public expenditure is incurred. This is further buttressed by section 80(2),3 and (4) of the constitution,” the CSOs said.
They observed that the process stated by the constitution was not followed by both the Presidency and the legislature.
They also disclosed that expenditure must be based on prior legislative approval and not legislative endorsement of already incurred expenditure, which was the case in the 2024 and 2025 appropriation acts.
According to the CSOs, the 2024 appropriation Act should have expired on December 31, 2024. However, the legislature proposed to extend the life span to June 2025 and later to December 2025 without following relevant extant provisions of the law.
“Even in its extended lifespan, the executive failed to implement the 2024 budget in accordance with its tenure, and now that the extended life has ended, the president sought to repeal and re-enact the Act, increasing the total budget size from N35.05 trillion to N43.56 trillion.
They described the actions as a legal and constitutional impossibility, which could only be possible in a country where the rule of law is continuously desecrated.
The pressure group noted that it would be an affront to the fiscal provisions of the constitution for the president to spend an extra N8 trillion in public funds without prior legislative approval, as Nigeria was not operating under any declared state of emergency.
They further expressed worry that the president only sought endorsement after expenditures, stressing that “it’s a violation of constitutional breach on fiscal transparency.”
Responding to the concerns raised by the CSOs, the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tamimi Yakubu, in a statement, said the constitution did not prohibit the National Assembly from repealing and re-enacting an appropriation act where fiscal circumstances, implementation realities or reconciliation of fiscal instruments make such legislative action necessary in the public interest.
The Budget Office further clarified that when the National Assembly passes a repeal and re-enactment bill, and the president assents, the resulting act becomes a valid law.
“It is therefore incorrect to describe a duly enacted repeal and re-enactment as a ‘constitutional impossibility,” it stated.
According to the Budget Office, where the National Assembly, in exercise of its legislative powers, extends the operational window of an appropriation act, such extension is an expression of legislative authority, not an illegality.
“The repeal and re-enactment process serves, among other things, to consolidate and regularise fiscal authority through an act of the National Assembly, thereby reinforcing – not undermining constitutional control of public,” it added.
Reacting to the Budget Office’s position, the CSOs stressed that legislative endorsement after expenditure questioned fiscal discipline and gave room for arbitrariness and careless spending of public fund.
“We recognise that the National Assembly has constitutional powers to legislate on fiscal matters; however, frequent or ad-hoc extension of budget lifespans – especially through resolutions rather than formal amendment acts – risks introducing uncertainty into fiscal management,” the CSOs added.
It would be noted that the Tinubu administration has carried over most of the capital components of the Federal Government’s budget, which the CSOs said did not follow due process in most cases and created room for fiscal recklessness.
There have been cases of the government’s increased borrowing, which is not directly tied to a particular project, and which is often used to fund the ostentatious lifestyle of political elites who continuously call on the populace to make sacrifices.
Harrison Edeh is a journalist with the International Centre for Investigative Reporting, always determined to drive advocacy for good governance through holding public officials and businesses accountable.