How padding can be an offence

The 2016 budget came with lots of controversies before it was finally passed. But with the issue of padding prodded into the spotlight by a former steward of the budgeting process, it raises questions ranging from the integrity, honorability, and transparency of the lawmakers to the opaque nature of their spending and why the house’s […]

The 2016 budget came with lots of controversies before it was finally passed. But with the issue of padding prodded into the spotlight by a former steward of the budgeting process, it raises questions ranging from the integrity, honorability, and transparency of the lawmakers to the opaque nature of their spending and why the house’s budget has been exponentially increasing despite it opaqueness.
Accusations and counter accusations have been made about padding of the budget. But just as Nigerians were keenly watching to see the outcome of the battle, and how Speaker Yakubu Dogara plans to defend himself, it came as another shock for the speaker to claim padding is not an offence citing reasons of the inexistence of the word ‘padding’ in the constitution. Such statement shows he has accepted tempering with the budget and also shows how insensitive he is to the suffering of Nigerians. It also raises questions on what criteria can be used in classifying an action as either an offence or not. And whether an action must explicitly be spelt in the constitution before it qualifies as an offence as well as what role does common sense, morality and ethics play in classifying offences.
If padding isn’t an offence as recently claimed, what then is the legality behind inserting projects into the budget by lawmakers in the name of constituency projects? Does the word ‘constituency project’ appear in the constitution?  If it does, is the right to insertion reserved for few? Why were some lawmakers sidelined from benefiting? The most important question is whether lawmakers are responsible for cross checking and approving the budget, or adjusting and inserting stuffs into it? These questions and many more that the lawmakers have not been able to explain have since cast doubt in the action by the lawmakers. Nigerians have come to understand why the 2016 budget was a mess.
Instead of proving their innocence, politicians can continue to use vocabularies to confuse the masses and justify their actions. But they should understand that Nigerians will continue to use their common senses to recognize such tricks. The issue of budget padding may have been timely as it has help to shed more light on some of the opaque practices in the National Assembly and will in one way or the other promote transparency. Finally, to claim an action must be explicitly spelt in the constitution before becoming a crime will mean the constitution have to be in thousands of volumes to help curb crimes and corrupt practices.
Yahaya Idris, Abuja, [email protected]