Budget padding: Claims and counter claims

As democracy thrives in Nigeria, new definitions would continue to be added to existing English words or phrases and their usage in Nigeria. In technical and general terms, padding refers to ‘extraneous text added to a message for the purpose of concealing its beginning, ending or length’. Based on the events that unfolded during deliberations […]

As democracy thrives in Nigeria, new definitions would continue to be added to existing English words or phrases and their usage in Nigeria. In technical and general terms, padding refers to ‘extraneous text added to a message for the purpose of concealing its beginning, ending or length’. Based on the events that unfolded during deliberations of the 2016 budget proposal by members of the Nigerian House of Representatives early this year, ‘budget padding’ as conceived by its creators denotes ‘increasing the budget proposal larger than the actual estimates proposed for projects’.
Recent claims and counter claims emerging from the House of Representatives over the 6-months-old case of budget padding, nonetheless, suggest some propositions. It reflects a sustained abuse of public trust and confidence by those elected to serve the overall and collective interest of Nigerians.
President Muhammadu Buhari said throughout his public service career as a military governor, petroleum minister, military Head of State and chairman of the Petroleum Trust Fund, he never heard of the phrase ‘budget padding’. Because the executive arm was, from the onset, made to look as if it were responsible for the discrepancies uncovered in the 2016 budget proposal, President Muhammadu Buhari vowed while addressing the Nigerian community in Riyadh during his state visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that ‘culprits will not go unpunished’. Soon after his return to Nigeria, President Buhari sacked the Director-General of the Budget Office, Yahaya Gusau who was only six months in office and immediately replaced him with the incumbent, Tijjani Abdullahi.
Nigerians were reminded10 days ago that the controversies about 2016 budget padding is not over when HonourableAbdulmumuniJubril (APC, Kano) who was hitherto the Chairman, House Committee on Appropriation, was on Thursday July 21, 2016 relieved of his position. The following day, Abdulmumini reacted to his sack by opening a can of worms on the padding of the 2016 budget, implicating the Speaker, Mr. YakubuDogara, in the padding controversy that involves over N40 billion. He accused Dogara of not only collecting bribes from MDAs but also masterminding the entire padding of the 2016 budget.
Given Abdulmumini’s past and present account of the budget padding controversy, his recent allegations against the Speaker remain suspicious and cynical. When the padding of the 2016 budget became public knowledge early in the year, Abdulmumini declared as chairman of the House Committee on Appropriation that the executive arm was accountable. Now that the House has turned its earlier claims against him, he is saying that the padding was done by the leadership of the House. Why, thus, should Abdulmumini want us to believe his allegations against Dogara?
The leadership of the House has challenged Representative Abdulmumin to show evidence of complicity of the Speaker, Yakubu Dogara and others in the padding of the 2016 budget. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has been invited by House leadership to investigateAbdulmuminiJibrin since his chairmanship of the Finance Committee in the 7th Assembly.The Speaker through his counsel has also given Abdulmumini 7 days within which to retract his allegations or face legal actions.
AbdulrazakNamdas, Chairman of the House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, explained that Abdulmumini’sremoval was based on ‘sundry acts of misconduct, incompetence, total disregard for his colleagues and abuse of the budgetary processes’. Namdas further said Abdulmumini ‘was found not to be fit and proper to hold such a sensitive office which exposes him to high officials of government at all levels.’ As Chairman of Appropriations Committee, ‘it became evident’ said Namdas ‘that he does not possess the temperament and maturity required for such a high office’. To justify Abdulmumini’s sack, Namdas added that Abdulmumini’s misconduct include the ‘insertion of MuhammaduBuhari Film Village project in his constituency in Kano State’. Namdas again said it was characteristic of Abdulmumin to go about asking members to recommend projects for him to help them include in the budget.
One question for Namdas and his colleagues is, if Abdulmumini Jibrin is actually culpable and is as irresponsible as all the charges leveled against him suggest, why and how come all the 360 members in the House failed to stop the padded budget from being passed? Abdulmumini alone couldn’t have passed the 2016 budget in its padded form. If they claim to be unaware, then, that alone is an indictment for dereliction of their statutory function as lawmakers who should study, analyze and deliberate every bill including appropriation before passing it.
Following the current dirty allegations of budget padding in the House of Representatives, former President Olusegun Obasanjo has reiterated his earlier position in 2012 that ‘rogues and armed robbers filled the legislature’. Fielding questions recently from State House correspondents after meeting privately with President Buhari at the Presidential Villa in Abuja, Obasanjo said ‘the institution stinks’.
Namdaswas so obsessed to exuberantly defend the Speaker that he became sentimentally determined to use some sections of the country’s 1999 constitutionto justify (rightly or wrongly) Dogara’s indulgence in the same ‘sin’ of budget padding over which Abdulmumini was sacked.Namdas said that the proposal which the executive submitted was mere estimate as stipulated in Section 81 (1). ‘It is obvious’, he rationalized, ‘that the constitution uses the word estimates advisedly. It is therefore an exhibition of crass ignorance, abuse of language, outright mischief and or blackmail for a legislator, especially one who chaired the Appropriations Committee to use the word padding to describe the action of parliament on the budget’.
Arguing further, Namdas said ‘the removal, introduction of projects or the amendment of Mr. President’s estimates in the Appropriation Bill cannot be construed as an act of corruption or impropriety because it is at the core of appropriation powers of the National Assembly as aptly enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. It is therefore clear, that no crime or wrong doing can be legitimately imputed on the actions or conduct of Mr. Speaker, the leadership or members of the House of Representatives before, during and after the passage of the 2016 Appropriation Bill’. Is this not ‘vindication of a suspect by another suspect according to the laws of Namdas?’
These revelations over the 2016 budget padding are a consequence of the prayers of wronged Nigerians whose interest, trust and confidence are daily betrayed by their leaders. Our politicians are unnecessarily taking the collective intelligence of Nigerians for granted. May Allah (SWT) continue to guide President Buhari in his fight against corruption as we also pray that He (SWT) exposes and shame all corrupt public officers, amin.