Buhari’s speech on 2018 budget

ON June 20, President Muhammadu Buhari signed the N9.120 trillion 2018 appropriation bill at the Presidential Villa. During the event, he expressed disappointment with the legislature’s cuts amounting to N347 billion in the allocations to 4,700 projects submitted to it for consideration. He was further upset  by the 6,403 projects, amounting to N578 billion, introduced by the legislature. Buhari protested the behaviour of the legislature on several grounds. The first, according to him, is that the constitutional power of the executive to propose budgets is based on the fact that it is the organ of government that knows and defines policies and projects. Cutting the budget provisions therefore amounts to disregarding this preeminent position of the executive in the definition and implementation of policies and projects.[/caption]

Second, the president argued that the cuts rendered many critical projects difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Third, he insisted that some of the new projects inserted by the National Assembly into the budget were not properly conceptualised, designed and estimated and would therefore be difficult to execute. Fourth, he claimed that some of the projects related to matters that were the responsibility of states and local governments, and for which the Federal Government should not be unduly burdened. Buhari also claimed that the appropriation proposal stayed too long with the National Assembly, which made the plan to move Nigeria towards a predictable January-December financial year unachievable for the current budget cy45cle. He then committed to working with the assembly to improve on the budgeting process in order to restore Nigeria to the January-December fiscal cycle. He said that the plan would be helped by the enactment of an Organic Budget Law that the National Assembly is working on and hoped to address some of the challenges through a supplementary and/or amendment budget.

ALSO READ: Presidency’s statement on Plateau massacre callous –  PDP

In a swift response, the National Assembly leadership said that it had no option but to tinker with the budget estimates. The parliamentarians explained that they decided to alter the budget in order “to ensure a balance in the budget provisions to the six geopolitical zones” across the country. It was the “balancing efforts” by the National Assembly that led to the observations raised by the president. The legislators further emphasised that the president’s complaints arose from the fact that he expected them to behave like a rubber stamp. “Certainly, you wouldn’t expect us to just rubber stamp and just bring it back. We have to do the nitty-gritty of budget consideration,” they said. They insisted that their activities on the budget proposal amounted to performing their constitutional responsibility of due diligence. They argued further that they had the constitutional responsibility to modify and amend budget estimates submitted to them by the executive. They said: “We have done what we think is the right thing to do to deliver on the expectations and the mandate bestowed on us by the people of our constituencies.”

The lawmakers elaborated on the claims relating to cuts and insertions into the budget proposal. Their main argument was that the cuts in all cases were not sufficient to derail the implementation of the projects. With regard to the delay in processing the budget, they revealed that it was caused by the failure of ministries, departments and agencies to submit details of their budget proposals or their amendments as requested by relevant committees of the National Assembly in time. For us, one major issue is the poor communication between these two vital organs of government. This should be addressed. Although the principle of separation of powers means that there are clear-cut sharing of responsibilities, the principle of checks and balances ensures that there is interaction among the organs of government and a clear interface in the exercise of political powers.

Besides, the Nigerian constitution is close to that of the United States in terms of the role of the legislature in the budgetary process. The constitution empowers it to review the expenditure up or down without the consent of the executive. The “power of the purse” granted the legislature is only counterbalanced by presidential veto. But then, the president must recognise that even where he withholds his assent, the legislature can review and pass the budget. We enjoin him to strengthen the channels of communication and consultation between ministries and agencies and the National Assembly. He must ensure that consultation over the budget is sustained and effective. That is the essence of liaison with the National Assembly. The president should not attempt to delegitimise the legislature by plebiscitary appeal through public statements. Rather, he should ensure that all executive agencies submit details of their budget proposals on time. That they have not been doing so is a sad commentary on his administration.

We also call on the National Assembly to give priority time to the Organic Budget bill in order to accelerate the process of its enactment. This will help to create a stable, effective and reliable budget process and avoid the undue delay that has characterised the budgetary process since 1999.