MINISTER of Power, Works and Housing, Babatunde Raji Fashola has opened a battlefront with the National Assembly over what he called alterations to the budget of his Ministry. In press statements released last week, the Minister decried the injection by the National Assembly of projects that were not discussed during the budget defence sessions.
He listed some of the projects tampered with to include reduction in allocations to Lagos-Ibadan Expressway and the Second Niger Bridge.
Spokesmen of the Senate and the House of Representatives, Senator Sabi Abdullahi and Hon. Abdurazak Namdas immediately responded by clarifying the position of the parliament.
Before the Fashola statements, Acting President Yemi Osinbajo had raised such issues during the budget signing session but admitted that the Assembly had agreed to effect virements.
If the agreement had been struck at that level, you won’t expect the Minister to further enter the ring against the 469 Assembly members.
Three things have emerged from the exchanges thus far. There is apparent lack of adequate engagements during the process; you may add a lack of understanding of the process and maybe, a bit of sentiments
playing out.
The budgetary process is one of the booby traps the democratic process had laid before practitioners of democracy. Somehow, the actors fail to identify that what they see as undue bottleneck was only prepared to stretch the limits of their patience. In climes where that understanding had been struck, there is less haggling.
Here, we are perpetually confronted with the problem. The late President Umaru Yar’Adua was the first to contemplate seeking judicial interpretation on the matter but the fear a shutdown of government as the legal battle may linger prevented him.
Having seen the budgetary process so far, I will say that the input of the legislature cannot be wished away. All manners of shenanigans get imputed into the budget process. Most times, they escape the eyes of executive officers. Imagine the figures being disowned here and there by Ministers during the budget defence sessions. But then the lawmakers are saints all through. In fact, neither party is saintly.
We may need to ask what manner of projects are injected by lawmakers. They are largely constituency projects which fund is already captured in the estimates presented by the Presidential estimates ab initio. They don’t need to reduce funds from any Ministry to fund Constituency Projects.
But do we need to raise the standards of constituency projects? Yes. We also need to streamline the projects along the line of the SDGs. What used to happen since Yar’Adua’s era is that a standing agreement which allows lawmakers inject projects in the region of N100 billion for the 469 constituencies. The lawmakers have the latitude to choose the projects and agency to execute.
The Constitution mandates the President to prepare and lay estimates before the National Assembly. The same Constitution empowers the lawmakers to pass the money bill into law, following their processes.
Usually, the lawmakers simply break into standing committees and allow the MDAs defend their portions. But this year, they organized hearings for public inputs. It was the first time and that was in exercise of their powers as contained in Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution.
Though Fashola’s arguments can easily sway the public, who have never trusted the parliament, I hold the view that the altercations are borne out of lack of adequate consultations. The democratic process, which emphasizes separation of powers does not guarantee distinct separation as such. In practice, we have interdependence and interrelationship of powers. It could be akin to a long chain. But the sensitivity of the actors can be so high, so no could play the headmaster, else you reap endless rancor.
Just before the budget was passed, media reports indicated that the Senate President, Bukola Saraki was present at an occasion where the Ministry of Finance signed an agreement with a consortium of financiers for the Lagos Ibadan Expressway. It stands to reason then that the reduction of budgetary allocations to that road was on the projection that private funding was on the way.
If that is no longer feasible, the Minister of Works needs to get back to the stakeholders including the Presidency and the Ministry of Finance, if not the lawmakers themselves.
I hear the Minister say that the lawmakers inject projects not discussed at the budget defence stages. That to me amounts to seeing budget passage as a system rather than a process. Positive engagements cannot stop at the level of budget defence, which is a day’s event of averagely two hours.
I doubt if the executive can wrestle the legislature to the ground on this matter. It is a tricky one that demands ingenuous engagements. They call it lobbying in other climes. Here some people want to bastardise that word to indicate money-for budget. But it is not so.
The executive and the legislature have got roles assigned by the Constitution and without ego massaging on both fronts, you remain on one spot.
If we may ask, what is the quarrel usually about? Budget estimates. Who says the estimates would eventually fall in line even when passed as presented? We have seen instances where budgets were passed and less than a quarter gets implemented. There could be mischief, there could be lack of commitment to execute and there could be shortage of cash inflow.
The constant question has remained whether there is sincerity of purpose to execute budgets. Why do we have to raise voices over the less than 30 percent capital allocations when you see no wimp when it’s time to consume the over 70 percent recurrent votes?
Rather than battle it out in courts or the market square, drawing a hapless crowd on either side, the two arms of government must learn to work together and save us the scenario of a sailor complaining about the sea.
and then