In spite of the continuous effort to portray the existence of cordial relationship between the executive and the National Assembly, cracks are evident at every turn and now the executive is billed to approach the Supreme Court to clarification and interpretation of Section 80 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants the National Assembly the power to approve appropriated public funds.
This effort is meant to put an end to the perennial disagreement between the executive and the legislature over the extent of the power of the legislature to appropriate public funds. And to determine if the National Assembly has power and authority to revised the estimate submitted by the executive.
Since the commencement of the fourth republic in 1999, there has been a dispute over the legislature’s insistence that it has the power to vary budget estimates presented to it by the executive for approval, referring specifically to Section 80(2) and (3) of the Constitution.
Section 80(2) provides: “No moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation except to meet expenditure that is charged upon the Fund by the Constitution or where the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or an Act passed in compliance with Section 81 of this Constitution.”
Section 80(3) also provides: “No moneys shall be withdrawn from any public fund of the Federation other than the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation unless the issue of these moneys has been authorised by an Act of the National Assembly.”
Section 81 to which Section 80(2) refers, provides: “The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year.”
The executive is not disputing that the power of approval of estimates lies with the legislature, it has contended that the latter’s authority does not include extensive adjustment of the estimates to the extent that the budget is rewritten by the National Assembly. But the National Assembly has countered that it has the constitutional power to vary and determine the figures once prepared and laid before it by the president, contending that the constitution did not intend the legislature to be a rubber stamp.
The conceptual disagreement has delayed the promulgation of the budget each year since 1999, with each president, from Chief Olusegun Obasanjo to Buhari, withholding assent until an agreement was reached with the National Assembly. The matter came to a head under President Umaru Yar’Adua, who approached the Supreme Court in 2008 for an interpretation of the constitution but was prevailed upon to withdraw the matter and seek a political resolution.
The 2016 Appropriation Bill was characterized with the allegation of padding which was never clearly resolved. The 2017 Appropriation Bill passed by the National Assembly about weeks ago is yet to be assented to by the Presidency over unnecessary and needless doctoring by the legislature which practically changed the content and intent of the budget.
