Lawyers weigh in on N/Assembly power to review budgets

Budget law needed – Don Approach S/Court for interpretation – SANs The debate on whether or not the National Assembly has power to increase the budget presented by the president has been a recurring one since 1999, a professor of law, Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), has said. This comes at the heels of reports quoting the […]

Budget law needed – Don

This comes at the heels of reports quoting the Acting President, Yemi Osinbajo, to have said the National Assembly has no right to introduce new projects or modify those contained in an appropriation bill.

Reacting to this, the National Assembly said its constitutional powers are unambiguous with regards to appropriation and warned the executive that it would not be a rubber stamp for it.

Speaking on this unending debate, Akinseye-George in an interview with Daily Trust said the constitution offers no clear answer to the question.

Section 81(1) of the constitution simply provides that, “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 revenues and expenditure of the federation for the next following financial year,” he said.

He said the use of the word estimates connotes that the figures submitted by the executive are neither sacrosanct nor conclusive.

“At best they are mere proposals,” he said of the budget.

“There is no special definition of estimates by the constitution. Therefore the word must be given its ordinary grammatical meaning of  “an idea or approximation rather than conclusive figures. The constitution also uses the word proposals with respect to the revenue allocation formula submitted to the National Assembly by the president under Section 162 (2).”

He said it is until the budget estimates is submitted to the National Assembly that it becomes a bill or legislative proposal.

“In my humble opinion, the National Assembly cannot be a mere rubber stamp. It has the power to scrutinise the estimates contained in the bill and demand explanations from the executive or anyone who may be of assistance to it in deciding what to approve. The estimates are mere guides,” he said.

The law professor said it is prudent but not mandatory for the legislature to consult the executive before altering the budget estimates one way or the other. He said this is because the power of managing the economy is that of the executive and it is expected that the executive has a broader perspective than the National Assembly in managing the economy, adding that, “This of course is not always the case.”

He said no arm of government can claim monopoly of authority with respect to the national budget.

“Even the judiciary could intervene in an appropriate case to ensure full compliance with the constitution. The case of AG Bendel v. AG Federation is relevant here. The Supreme Court nullified the Appropriation Act which was not passed in conformity with the constitution.

“Therefore rather than bickering over whether the National Assembly has power to alter the budget estimates or not, the legislative and the executive arms should work together in developing the budget such that there would have been understanding on the estimates before they are submitted to the National Assembly,” he said.

He urged the National Assembly to pass a budget law which will spell out the guidelines for making, processing and approving the budget, adding that the executive should play a role in the development of the Budget Act.

“The provisions of the constitution are too skeletal on the budget making and approving processes. Only a comprehensive budget law can help to address the perennial but needless controversy over whether the National Assembly can increase the budget estimates submitted by the president. Until then, the established practice since 1999 seems to be that the National Assembly has the power to vary the estimates submitted by the Executive,” Akinseye-George said.

Several other lawyers spoken to share the opinion of the law don with Abuja-based lawyer, Hameed Jimoh, explaining further that, “having considered the provisions of sections 80(2&3), 81(1,2&4), 82, 83 and 318(4) of Nigerian Constitution and Section 10(2) of the Interpretation Act, LFN, 2004, the National Assembly has the incidental powers to remove and or add in the appropriation bill or budget submitted to it by the executive.”

He said words like ‘authorise’ and ‘prescribe’ used in the above sections of the constitution as what the National Assembly has power to do on the appropriation bills presuppose that the National Assembly has the power to remove and or add to the executive’s appropriation bill submitted to it. He said the constitution never envisages a rubber stamp legislative body.

He said the membership in the National Assembly is such that gives the Nigerian people the opportunities of cross checking and making inputs into the country’s national budgets.

“So, it is a good idea if the Nigerian people have the ability of making inputs into the national treasury’s expenditures through its elected members in the National Assembly,” he said.

Jimoh said budget ‘padding’ or misuse of such incidental powers of the National Assembly are an internal issue and the people have the right to sue the National Assembly for enforcement of compliance with the provisions of the constitution and compel them to be transparent in their exercise of their legislative powers.

Meanwhile, several other senior lawyers including Femi Falana (SAN), Sebastine Hon (SAN) and Prof. Konyinsola Ajayi (SAN) have stressed the need to approach the Supreme Court to seek the true definition of “appropriation”.

Hon added that with the budget now signed, anybody can approach the Supreme Court to seek clarification since the move will have nothing to do with the signing of the budget but will put to rest the continued and yearly debate on what and what cannot be done to the budget by the NASS.