By Dan Amor
For all you may care
to know, the 2016 Appropriation Bill, like its predecessors, has continued to
generate heat between the Executive and the Legislature one month into the
second quarter of the year. Some analysts have ascribed the feud between the
Presidency and the National Assembly over the 2016 Budget to the trial of the
Senate President Dr. Bukola Saraki by the Code of Conduct Tribunal over the alleged
false declaration of assets by Saraki.
They believe that the
National Assembly is trying to use the budget as a bargaining chip to cut a
deal with the Presidency in order to give the Senate President a soft-landing.
And, as they say, when two elephants fight, the grass suffers, Nigerians are
facing untold hardship as a result of the protracted delay in the passage of
the budget. Yet, unnecessary Executive/Legislative conflicts have come to
characterise the annual budget making process in the country and, to a large extent,
undermine the effectiveness of budgets in delivering to Nigerians the
so-called dividends of democracy. These conflicts have arisen in spite of the
actual delineation of roles and responsibilities of the Executive vis-a-vis
the Legislature particularly the extent of authority regarding variations to
key assumptions incorporated in the Appropriation Bill by the Executive that
should be allowed the Legislature. In the particular case of the 2016
Appropriation Bill, the National Assembly went too far.
Section 4 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is unambiguously
clear about the role of the National Assembly and its responsibilities as the
Podium of the elected representatives of the people. Also, Sections 80-83
publish the role of the Legislature with specific respect to the management of
the nation’s finances. Whereas, in exercising its oversight functions, the
Legislature is empowered by the Constitution to either add to or subtract from
the allocation forwarded to it by the Executive, it can always do that in
consultation with the latter. The Constitution does not empower the National
Assembly to create new clauses or remove in its entirety an item already budgeted
for by the Executive without the consent of the latter. The current unbridled
legislative rascality being displayed by our lawmakers is nothing but the
hangover of irascible corruption which was the stock-in-trade of previous legislatures
since 1999.
No doubt, the
received wisdom and the practice of the presidential system of democracy
indubitably accords the Legislature unfettered authority to vary any aspect of
the budget proposal preferably in consultation with the Executive, as noted
above, as an integral part of the approval process. To ensure that the decision
to alter the content of the Appropriation Bill prior to approval is not
whimsical or driven by selfish considerations, it is recommended that exclusive
and far-reaching consultations and collaboration between the Executive and
Legislature should characterise the budget preparation process.
But in the context of
the prevailing situation, the Legislature is yet to establish a full-fledged,
appropriately staffed Legislative Research and Budget Office and, to that
extent, is handicapped by the lack of a robust basis upon which to perform its
approval and oversight functions. In the United States of America from where
we borrowed our Executive Presidential system, internationally celebrated
economists and reputable experts such as Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, are
constantly hired by the Legislature to think for them and give them direction
in the budgetary procedure.
It is therefore
suggested that this power to vary budgetary proposals from the Executive
should be exercised with a great deal of circumspection as the Executive could
be operating from the standpoint of a relatively superior understanding of the
workings of the economy given the institutional capacity of its proposal. For
instance, in 2004, while Nigerians were expecting words regarding the approval
of the budget which President Olusegun Obasanjo presented to the joint sitting
of the National Assembly on October 12, 2004, it filtered out that there was
move to increase the benchmark price of crude of 27 dollars used for the
preparation of the budget and that the Executive had sent in a letter
cautioning against such a move.