Fashola et al: Fidgeting before equity

At a time when Nigerians are expecting to see some relief from the pains of daily grind of life, and which the approved 2017 budget promises to address, the last thing the public mood will stand is unwarranted delay in implementation of the package. Having been stretched to the limit of their stress tolerance, most Nigerians who have no fall-back reserves, (acquired legitimately or otherwise and hidden in suspect bank accounts, soak-away pits, farms, ranches, cemeteries and other non-descript locations), see the budget rightly or wrongly, as a cure-all package of goodies that will turn their fortunes around. And who would blame them given the harsh bite of the unrelenting recession across the country?

However, as things stand Nigerians now need to pray fervently that the 2017 budget on which they are placing so much hope, eventually translates from a mere plan of intent, into a coordinated sequence of impactful activities; its belated approval notwithstanding. Courtesy of a non-abating spell of belly-aching by some top ranking operatives in the Executive arm, who seem inconsolable over the temerity of the National Assembly, to tamper with the budget as presented by the Executive arm, the prevailing economic woes of Nigerians may still be prolonged. With the Minister of Power, Works and Housing Raji Fashola leading a fresh assault on the National Assembly over the restructuring of his ministry’s budget by the country’s apex legislative establishment, the signs are just too clear that 2017 may eventually end up as another year of a failed national budget.

Recently, Fashola launched a broadside salvo at the National Assembly accusing the institution of inserting fresh items into the budget that were strange to the submissions made by his ministry, and challenged the powers of the legislature to act as reported by him. Specifically his lament was on why the National Assembly should not only reduce the budgetary allocation for some projects like the Second Niger Bridge, OkeneLokoja -Abuja Road and the Mambilla Hydro-electric Power project which constitute critical national infrastructure but also substitute them with items with lesser value like “boreholes and health centres”. He then laced his misgiving with a hint at seeking judicial interpretation of the powers of the National Assembly.

However, in the wake of his accusation of the National Assembly of exercising powers it does not have, the institution raised the more damaging suspicion of concealment of information by him, from the public about the component of counterpart funding in the projects he is crying about. According to the National Assembly, projects that suffered some reduction in budgetary allocation are already benefitting from counterpart funding from private sector stake holders, and which should not come from statutory budgetary allocation. Besides such recovered funds were re-designated by the National Assembly to other projects that not only qualified for attention, but also provided a wider spread of the government’s largesse.

The situation therefore spawns a legion of questions including three critical ones. Firstly is whether Fashola was privy to the counterpart funding on these projects? Secondly is if the answer is yes, why was such significant provision not incorporated in the budget and only featured with the intervention of the National Assembly? Besides the foregoing, Fashola’s reported allusion that this issue may have contributed to the delay in signing of the budget by Acting President Yomi Osinbanjo, remains significant in the circumstances. It is easily recalled that it took the Acting President as much as 24 days to assent to the budget inspite of the unprecedented delay in its passage. The 7.28 trillion 2017 budget was passed by the National Assembly on May 10th and arrived the Presidency on May 19th, only to be signed by June 12th 2017. Interestingly, at the time of assent to the budget he Osinbajo had also expressed similar misgivings about the role of the National Assembly with respect to the 2017 budget, in respect of which Fashola’s attack on the National Assembly may not be different from a veiled perpetuation of the habitual assault by several operatives of the Presidency on the powers of the legislature which seems to be a perennial source of irritation to them the institution and the Presidency agreed to revisit the budget in the course of time. In that case it needs to be explored and established whether Osinbajo was privy to the fact that budgetary allocation was to be mis-applied to expenditure items that are beneficiaries of counterpart funding. For he could have been misled, in his take on the National Assembly.

Fashola’s attack on the National Assembly may not be different from a veiled perpetuation of the habitual assault by several operatives of the Presidency on the powers of the legislature which seems to be a perennial source of irritation to them. Seen in context this power show by such officers is driven by a system-wide mindset of infallibility which unfortunately remains the incubus that vitiates the effectiveness of any reform agenda in the country’s public service delivery regime. And that is the crux of the matter.

Granted the fact that no man made institution is infallible especially the Nigerian National Assembly, it will amount to undue presumption to confer a blanket vindication to the institution. However in the circumstances under consideration it would seem that Fashola’s grudge did not accommodate the reservations of the National Assembly over the exclusion from or poor representation of the counterpart funding component in his budget package. His grouse should be directed at his budget officers rather than the National Assembly which as an institution comprising the elected representatives of the people is mandated by Nigerians to exercise due scrutiny of government business.

The issues that informed their intervention and restructuring of the 2017 budget with respect to Fashola’s ministry and ostensibly some other agencies qualify as guided by a commitment to equitable distribution of the common patrimony of Nigerians, on the basis of need and national development. And the best he can do is to dispense with impunity and strive to be on the same page with the institution. His uneasiness in vehement protest over the matter therefore portrays his as fidgeting against the promotion of equity, which the National Assembly stands for as an institution. Besides, instead of pursuing a suspect advocacy as he is engaged in presently, he can do better by relying on the opportunity offered by the proposed revisit of the budget as agreed between the National Assembly and the Presidency to correct any anomaly he may be contending with.

As for the National Assembly, the lessons from the Fashola issue point to the need for more intensive scrutiny of the less obvious aspects of the country’s fiscal terrain. This is especially so with respect to the management of fiscal vehicles as counterpart funds and foreign loans, which are often not obvious in routine budget considerations but are masked in jargon and protocols which may be indiscernible to the general public. In many cases overzealous government officials commit the country to such obligations and deliberately dispense with proper domestication and follow through of same. The inevitable result is that the nation often ends up being short changed while the dealing officers go home smiling over their successes in enriching themselves.