A group of serving and former members of the House of Representatives have concluded plans to approach the courts for the interpretation of Section 80 (4) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
This they say, is in efforts at correcting the impression that Nigerian lawmakers criminally inflate budget proposals submitted by the executive arm of government.
The lawmakers said their intent is to ask the courts to give an interpretation on the ownership of budget between the executive and the legislature.
The section of the constitution the lawmakers are seeking interpretation for confers absolute power on the legislature over public funds.
Section 80 (4) “No money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public fund of the Federation, except in the manner prescribed by the National Assembly”.
The lawmakers, under the aegis of Faculty Board of Initiatives, FBI, said the controversy generated by the budget padding issue has made it expedient to approach the court for proper interpretation of the law.
According to Eseme Oyibo, the spokesman of FBI, said at a press briefing on Thursday that the group believed that ‘padding’ was a misapplication of word because, as lawmakers, the constitution allowed budget proposals to be adjusted which was why it was presented as a bill by the President.
Eyibo, a former spokesman of the House of Representatives, said the annual Appropriation bill flows from the Executive to the Legislature and goes back to the Executive after its passage before assent and implementation.
According to him, pre-budget meeting between both arms of government that allows the executive to take into account the input of the legislature would have been of no basis, if it was not provided for by the constitution.
He however admitted that an abuse of the process was possible, while also urging Nigerians to protect the legislature in order to ensure checks and balances, as well as separation of power in government.
“The Appropriation act is a law which flows from budgetary estimate from executive to the legislature and back to the presidency as prescribed by section 80 sub section 4 of the constitution.
“The question is could the framers of the constitution could have envisaged that no money from the consolidation fund be spent without the prescription of the legislature?
“It goes to mean that budget was not meant to be rubber stamped by the legislature. Budgetary proposal was intended to come through the legislature so that the principles of balance and separation of power could be strengthened.
“Adjustments made in the budget is what we believe that the budget must have been padded. The term is wrongly applied here”.
“Constituency and zonal interventions projects is in tandem with democratic tenets, Nigerians must protect the sanctity of the legislature because it remains an integral part of democracy and rule of law in the polity.
“It is important to preserve the institution. Let us not behave like a society acting drama in the theatre of the absurd. I am pleading with Nigerians that please the word padding is a misapplication in the circumstances of the budget.
“Constituency projects and zonal interventions projects are intended to serve the people. We are here to call for the preservation of the institution and express support for the president.”
By Timothy Enietan-Matthews
Join the conversation
Opinions
Support Ripples Nigeria, hold up solutions journalism
Balanced, fearless journalism driven by data comes at huge financial costs.
As a media platform, we hold leadership accountable and will not trade the right to press freedom and free speech for a piece of cake.
If you like what we do, and are ready to uphold solutions journalism, kindly donate to the Ripples Nigeria cause.
Your support would help to ensure that citizens and institutions continue to have free access to credible and reliable information for societal development.
Donate Now
