2018 Budget controversy: Beyond National Assembly clarification

Apparently acting in the wake of the deluge of reactions trailing reservations expressed by President Muhammadu Buhari over the now assented 2018 budget, the National Assembly responded with its own explanation of how and why it restructured the package. In a statement signed jointly by the Chairmen of Media in the Senate and House of Representatives Senator Sabi Abdullahi and Honourable Abdulrazak Namdas respectively, the federal legislature offered Nigerians perhaps in a most unprecedented parade of details, a formal clarification with respect to the cuts and additions that were effected on the budget by its various committees.

With the clarification by the National Assembly, the debate over the circumstances of the 2018 budget and the country’s budgeting management regime in general has not been diminished, but rather deepened for good. Public discourse on the fortunes or otherwise of the fiscal terrain in the country can now be appraised in the public domain by a wider cross-section of the society.

In the context of the foregoing it is not out of place to consider critics of the National Assembly for restructuring the 2018 budget, as misreading the intent of the Constitution, which avails the legislature of sweeping powers

Tover the country’s purse. The simple explanation is found in the ambit of oversight powers of the legislature - which in simple terms is scrutiny. It is the duty of the legislature to scrutinize on behalf of the citizenry, the sundry operations of the executive in order to ensure fiscal discipline, strategic allocation of resources, and operational efficiency.

Parliamentary oversight or scrutiny over the executive can be exercises at two levels. In the first place the legislature can and should exercise scrutiny of executive fiscal operations ex ante, that is before spending of appropriated funds are disbursed. On the other hand the legislature can and should also scrutinise the executive ‘post ante’, which is after the funds may have been disbursed.

From every day experience with fiscal operations in the country, hardly is the ‘post ante’ oversight function effective as in most cases, once money is appropriated and disbursed, the bulk of it ends up diverted into private pockets. This situation is just too common place with Nigeria’s public service leading to earning the ignoble name of a country with a fragmented financial system for which drastic remediation measures are recommended including the now settling Treasury Single Account (TSA). At this point it is appropriate to recall a comment credited to then General Muhammadu Buhari in his days as the Executive Chairman of the defunct Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) that several public officers simply put public money on the table and simply share it to themselves, in the name of budget implementation.

Against the backdrop of just the few cases of corruption which the President has been contending with in the system, he does not need further proof that what he lamented over in the PTF days is still prevalent in the system. Besides in the face of this welter of evidence, is it any wonder that year after year, the country’s budget is hardly implemented beyond the paper figure of 30% on the average. This is even as implementation is often measured in error by the quantum of money disbursed and not the actual state of physical development of a designated project or programme.

During a recent discussion with the encyclopedic Mahmud Jega - Chairman of the Daily Trust Editorial Board and celebrated columnist, he noted that virtually all MDA chiefs blame their failure to deliver on their mandate on ‘paucity of funds’ even when they are provided with the very funds they requested. The foregoing scenario tallies with an African proverb which asks that “when a man who is ensconced in a well appointed apartment that is complete with burglary proof on windows, air-conditioning and bullet proof security doors is complaining of being haunted by a ghost, what would the man sleeping under the tree in the heart of the jungle complain about”?

It is therefore in the interest of changing the present system whereby budgetary allocations are routinely mismanaged and stolen to an expected dispensation of compliance by dedicated operatives of the executive with the laws, and guidelines that provide for budgetary discipline. For now the area of attention may be the federal tier because the other tiers of states and local government are still under the yoke of ‘shogun’ style control by the respective state governors who even extend their sway over the local governments’ finances. Hopefully it may be just a matter of time before these other tiers are also under the searchlight. This is because by the circumstance of the President’s reservation and the clarification by the National Assembly, a significant portion of the voodoo like ambience that had shrouded budget matters in the country hitherto, may have been lifted; and that is good for the country’s democracy.

Courtesy of the clarifications by the National Assembly the President’s reservations can no more be taken hook, line and sinker as would have been in the days of subdued response by the legislature to accusations of ‘obstructing’ the President unnecessarily. Meanwhile all it was doing was discharging its constitutionally assigned duty of providing checks and balances on the executive arm comprising the President and his aides.

The primary impetus for the train of reactions to the President’s reservations was the fear that even as the 2018 budget had been assented to by the President its implementation may not progress as envisaged given that the primary motivator being Mr President is yet to buy into it. And that such a situation may give room to his aides to compromise its implementation. After all, given the history of budget implementation in the country - at least since the return of democracy in 1999, such a fear is not baseless.

In the final analysis it behooves the National Assembly to build on the capital of enhanced public rating over it courageous outing with respect to the budget and adopt affirmative action beyond rhetoric. A more affirmative action against known enemies of change in the executive should be sanctioned without minding whose ox is gored. As the 2018 budget debate has shown the legislature is not as toothless or docile as many may assume. It’s time then to show the punching side of the parliament.