censoj@gmail.com; 08127235995
the controversy arising from the passage of the 2018 federal budget on the respective roles of the executive and legislative arms of government in the budgeting process presents an opportunity for learning and progress. It is not a scenario of saints and sinners or where one of the parties can assume a moral high ground, as there is none to assume. But if we choose to waste the learning experience, then we are bound to continue the yearly ritual of controversy that leads to nowhere.
It is pertinent to recall that this controversy is not new. It has been with us since the tenure of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Thus, it is as old as the current democratic dispensation. However, we have kept on repeating the mistakes inherent in the challenge without taking away the positives that would lead to the reform of the budgeting process. The 1999 Constitution provides for separation of powers, as well as checks and balances.
Budget making is one area where we cannot practice a theory of water-tight separation of powers because the President is given the power to present estimates, while the National Assembly is given the power to approve, to appropriate (which is just about the powers of NASS), to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation. Thus, the two arms have legitimate claims about their participation in budget making. But the exact contours of where the respective duty of the executive and legislature ends is not spelt out in the constitution.
The first point of departure is that the making of a budget is like the making of a baby. It takes a male and female to produce a baby and this does not preclude the artificial insemination process. Thus, the executive and legislature need to cooperate, collaborate and work on the same page, if we are to get a development oriented budget either at the federal or state level. The federal budget neither belongs to the executive nor the legislature; it is the budget of the people of Nigeria. So, the idea that the executive owns the budget simply because they produce policy, prepare the financial estimates or implement the budget misses the point. On the other hand, any claim of absolute powers of the legislature in the budget making process stands logic on its head.
In reforming the budget process, we have to start from ensuring that the financial year runs in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Year Act which defines the Nigerian financial year as the period, January 1 to December 31 of every year. To achieve this, we need the collaboration of the executive and legislature. Available information indicates that the legislature has taken a step to achieve this by amending section 81 of the Constitution to ensure that the President presents the federal estimates not later than 90 days to the end of the financial year. The implication is that the estimates will be laid before the legislature three months to the end of the year, which is a reasonable time for NASS to conclude the approval process.
Why President Muhammadu Buhari has refused to sign this bill, which also got the approval of not less than 24 State Houses of Assembly, is baffling, especially since he stated his desire to return Nigeria to the appropriate financial year calendar.
The second point is about consultation, good faith; the two arms working in confidence as partners and understanding that one arm cannot go it alone. This will involve having agreements at the preparation stage about the parametres of the budget, anchored on the Medium Term Expenditure Framework and the Medium Term Sector Strategies. Such consultation will involve opening up the preparation process early enough so that legislators make their inputs to Ministries, Departments and Agencies housing their proposed constituency projects. This will provide the opportunity for priorities to be agreed upon so that nominated projects will be made to fit into the system with requisite technical studies, environmental impact assessments, etc. In as much as legislators will nominate constituency projects, an agreement must be reached so that such projects must be on issues where the NASS has legislative competence under the constitutional schedules. It may not be the best option for the federal government to be funding projects which under the division of roles between the federal, state and local governments, belong to states and local governments.
The third issue is that the budgeting system will be reformed for capital project continuity and spending within available resources to avoid spreading national resources too thin on so many projects which cannot be completed in the short and medium terms. The Project Implementation and Continuity Bill proposed by Vision: 20:2020 had sought to guarantee that existing projects are not abandoned but completed first before provisions are made for new ones. It provides a framework for prioritisation so that resources are not wasted during the long period of gestation between award of contracts and project completion.
The fourth is that the President must understand leadership and carry other arms of government along in the delicate task of balancing conflicting interests. Always trying to blame another arm of government or coming to the public to portray the other arm in bad light will backfire because at the end of the day, the President will still go back to the NASS for whatever amendments that will be proposed. Of course, the NASS has responded to the President’s allegations. When there is much misgiving between institutions that should collaborate for our development, progress will stagnate and bickering will take the place of good governance.
What stopped the President from drawing the attention of the leadership of the NASS to his reservations with the approved 2018 budget rather than coming to read a public speech which heavily criticized the legislature? Assuming the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives were available in Nigeria and had attended the budget signing ceremony, would the President had expected them to sit there and listen to his scolding? Definitely, the President will still send a formal communication to the NASS and he expects them to happily approve his requests.
Nigerian Presidents since Olusegun Obasanjo have been enjoying this public spat with the NASS, but this has not changed anything. Rather, the contenders are digging deeper into a hole. If the approach of the executive had been working all these years, these challenges would have stopped. However, it is not working and will not work. Therefore new strategies and new thinking is needed. Collaboration is the way, coupled with a good dose of patriotism and knowledge.
END
Be the first to comment