$1 Billion Fund to Strengthen National Security
TNational Security: A Priority he President of Nigeria, has no greater responsibility than protecting Nigerians from threats, both foreign and domestic. He is vested by the Constitution, with the authority and responsibility to accomplish this essential task. In taking his oath of office, the President swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Nigeria. Section 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (CFRN) provides that “security of lives and welfare of the people shall be the primary responsibility of government”. The National Security is a topmost priority of Government. The National Assembly, must now make its voice heard on the key issue of national security, and bring to a vote, support for President Buhari’s strategy for pursuing the war on insurgency and strengthening all our security platforms in dealing with the threats to our national security in the way that he, as Commander-in-Chief, deems necessary.
The security challenge in Nigeria is real and existential. It has assumed a monumental proportion, across the length and breath of Nigeria; from herdsmen-farmers conflicts; armed banditry and kidnappings and the dreaded Boko Haram insurgency, attracting a global attention. As we approach the electioneering year, if adequate measures are not taken in dealing with these various security situations, our very democratic process will be seriously undermined.
Controversy The controversy over the proposed release of $1 Billion, stemmed from the decision of the Federal Government acting upon the approval of Nigeria’s Governors Forum (NGF), to fight insurgency and other criminal activities throughout the Federation of Nigeria. It is worthy of note, that the purported funds belong to the three tiers of Government.
Questions were also raised about the legality of the Nigeria’s Gover- nors Forum, believed to be a body of Governors of the Federation, but not registered, and cannot in their capacity sue and be sued as NGF, therefore, lacked the legal right to authorise the use of the funds belonging to the three tiers of Government. It may be argued though, that, it is the State Legislative Houses that can appropriate on behalf of the States of the Federation. Another point raised by critics, also examines questions relating to the role of Local Councils under the law, and why they were not consulted nor represented, before and when the decision was taken?
Excess Crude Account The argument on whether the Excess Crude Account (ECA), is constitutional or not, can be addressed later in the face of existential threats confronting the nation. The Constitution recognises only the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the Federation Account, as the custodian of all Federal revenues; however, there is no contradiction on the existence and operations of the excess crude, in so far as there is proper accountability on disbursements or spending arising from the use of the excess crude monies.
What is germane, is whether the President can execute the funds from the Federation Account or ECA, without appropriation by the National Assembly (NASS).
Established in 2004, the ECA was designed as a contingency plan, meant for depositing or saving excess crude oil revenue which had gone beyond the planned bench mark (budget), for securing and protecting planned budgets in the event of any shortfall or deficit in the consolidated funds, due to the changing prices of crude oil. The ECA, is funds belonging to the 3 tiers of Government.
From the foregoing, it is noteworthy to state that the funds in question, sought by the President, is to be withdrawn from the ECA, which is a contingency fund, nevertheless a public fund. It is a need, which has arisen for expenditure, for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by the Act, but yet it is extremely important to address national security issues.
Therefore, as clearly provided in section 81(4) of the CFRN and Section 14(a)(b) of the Finance (Control and Management) Act, a supplementary estimate showing the sums required, is expected to be laid before each House of the NASS, and the heads of any such expenditure shall be included in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill. This implies that, the request for One Billion US Dollars security funding, ought to be subjected to the processes of appropriation through the NASS, as provided for in the legislation above, being a public fund of the Federation. Since the Constitution clearly provides that the NASS alone exercises control over public funds of the nation, but the Executive is charged with providing the budgetary information. Hence, only the President can request for an appropriation to be made.
Finally, it would be appropriate to point out the fact that, the approval given by the President for the withdrawal of One Billion US Dollars for security funding, is merely an approval at the Executive level, as evidence of a resolution by the Governors and the President, for the purposes of addressing the issue given by the President. It does not mean an approval to automatically withdraw funds from the account, or an attempt to circumvent or usurp the powers of the NASS, as there are procedures to be followed as laid out by the CFRN and other subsidiary legislation.
Thankfully, the Presidency via the SSA on Media and Publicity, has clarified the issue; that the President’s
“THANKFULLY, THE PRESIDENCY THE SSA ON MEDIA AND PUBLICIT HAS CLARIFIED THE ISSUE; THAT PRESIDENT’S APPROVAL FOR THE FUNDS IN QUESTION, IS ONLY FIRST STEP THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN UPON IDENTIFYING THE NEED”
approval for securing the funds in question, is only the first step that has been taken, upon identifying the need. Therefore, I do not see the need for the countless criticisms and dust being raised by the opposition party, other groups and individuals, as they have been as unnecessary and hasty in their judgement; the usage of the word “Approval” notwithstanding, as every resolution of or by the Federal Executive Council, must receive the approval of the President before any further constitutional steps will be required to be taken.
Conclusion The approval of the $1Billion, is required by law to go through Appropriation by the National Assembly. It is recommended, that the various security chiefs and finance department of the Government, should be engaged during this legislative processes of debate and committee hearings, to defend the budget. This is without prejudice to the fact that, it must undergo the procurement processes as required by law, before due execution.
Daniel Bwala, Legal Practitioner, Member, Lincolns Inn, London