As events unfold in relation to the 2016 federal budget estimates currently at the National Assembly, it is becoming difficult to separate wild nightmares and dreams from reality. The budgeting process has degenerated to a point that all right-thinking Nigerians would not have imagined a couple of years ago. But there is a silver lining if we draw lessons from what has happened and use them for the improvement of the system.
A couple of issues come to the fore; with ministers openly disclaiming the contents of their budget estimates before the National Assembly, posers upon posers become imperative. We were meant to believe that civil servants are the best in running the Ministries, Departments and Agencies of government. Indeed, President Muhammadu Buhari did not understand the “undue clamour” for the appointment of ministers as he described than as noisemakers. Effectively, ministers were not in place until November 2015 considering their screening by the National Assembly and assignment of portfolios. By this time, it is understood that the budgetary process had already taken off with civil servants in the lead.
However, the estimates were compiled and eventually approved by the Federal Executive Council before the President took them to the National Assembly. It is expected that every minister would have been on top of the estimates for his ministry. Even if the estimates were prepared by someone else, he should have taken time to read through and raise questions for clarification where he does not understand the issues or outright disapproval of some line items before it goes to the Federal Executive Council. Budget estimates of most ministries are not more than 30-50 pages except the estimates of big ministries like education and health which run into between 100 and 200 pages. Would it be too much to expect a minister to sit down and study these estimates if he did not generate them? If the minister lacks the capacity to understand figures and budget related issues, what about the numerous special advisers and personal assistants and the array of technical assistants available in the civil service? Even if these persons cannot assist, what about hiring consultants who will help in disaggregating the issues?
Thus, the disclaimer by the ministers holds no water and shows either gross incompetence, gross negligence or, to be charitable to them, the failure of supervision. None of these options is good for the image and reputation of our ministers. To even worsen matters, the first budget that was submitted was, as it turned out, smuggled out of the National Assembly and a replacement submitted through the back door. This caused a lot of tension until the President owned up and eventually submitted the substitution through the normal due process. If the ministers did not have the opportunity of going through the first withdrawn budget, why did they not make their input before the substitution? To think of it, that these are substituted estimates and ministers are still making excuses sends shocks across the spines of any decent Nigerian.
Funny enough, the line items that have caused this mischief are not new. The analysis of these issues has been constantly undertaken by the civil society through the Citizens Wealth Platform on a yearly basis. Copies of the pull outs of frivolous, inappropriate, unclear and wasteful expenditure are available to both the executive and legislature as a guide for reforms. But they have been constantly ignored as if the materials are not available and maybe, they are waiting for God and his angels to come down from heaven to effect reforms.
The other issue that has complicated the estimates is the process and methodology challenge introduced by the idea of Zero-based Budgeting system. It is the view of the author of this discourse that the time was too short to implement a zero-based budgeting system; capacities needed to built in the civil service and political office holders; laws like the Fiscal Responsibility Act need to be amended to properly situate the new process whilst sensitisation, awareness and capacity need to be built in the demand side of the private sector and civil society. But the administration was in a rush to introduce the new system without adequately preparing the ground to make it a success. And this is where we have ended up with a budget that died on arrival.
Available information indicates that an executive team has been set up to review the estimates a second time after the legislature and the public complained about the discrepancies in the estimates. Again, the same mistake is repeated – an executive team without an input from other stakeholders and we may still come back full cycle with another round of complaints when they submit their report. This is the time to open up and use all the available competencies in Nigeria to ensure a decent 2016 federal budget rather than further closing up the system.
What and where are the anchor and basis of the 2016 estimates in terms of link to policy to guarantee credibility? There is no overarching framework or policy guide for budgeting today. Essentially, we are budgeting in vacuum. This accounts for various allocations by the MDAs to engage in tasks already firmed out to electricity distribution companies – transformers and distribution lines, etc. We sold off public houses and vehicles under the monetisation programme only to have requests for vehicles and residential buildings back in the estimates. We are still interested in a national carrier when no one has offered a solution to the menace that killed Nigeria Airways. We have a National Automobile Policy to encourage local assembly and manufacture of vehicles but our demand for vehicles in the estimates is dominated by foreign brand names. Why are we groping in the dark like a people without knowledge and a herd of sheep without a leader?
The constitution requires the President to prepare the estimates and submit to the National Assembly for approval. It does not permit him to substitute and further withdraw to substitute again. The ball is now in the court of the National Assembly who should sit down and craft a budget based on the estimates. They should review and weed out frivolous expenditure; refocus budgetary priorities on the needs of Nigerians; get inputs from multiple stakeholders. This is where a functional and effective legislative budget office would have come to the rescue with a huge repertoire of information, knowledge, competencies and capacities. All the technical analyses, resolution of macroeconomic data in consideration of the models behind their generation would have been done by the legislative budget office.
The lesson to draw from this budget fiasco is clear: Start the budgeting process on time, get the most competent persons to work on it, prepare for success by building institutional capacity, open up the system, get and use the inputs of stakeholders and prepare an overarching framework to guide the policies of the administration.
Finally and most importantly, the President and the Federal Executive Council should apologise to Nigerians. The grandstanding about ordering a probe and blaming an imaginary budget mafia cuts no ice with Nigerians. If the estimates were sound, the President and his team would have taken the credit; now that it is otherwise, they should also own to their failings.
PUNCH
END
After reading i just want to say that we have moved away from the position of the writer to the position of reality, blowing grammar on TV, RADIO or PRINT MEDIA on economy is the cause of our problem forgoting that in our own case Nigeria is reality of the situation we want. As we all know the first responsibility of a leader is to define reality, which am sure nobody is in doubt the President Muhammadu Buhari is doing that and we are not in disagreement on his integrity so why worry?