Separation Of Powers And The Budgetary Process in Nigeria

One of the guiding principles for the proper running of
any democracy is the doctrine of separation of powers. A doctrine
which provides that the three branches of government (executive,
legislature and judiciary) should be kept separate and each arm be
vested with separate powers to prevent an abuse of those powers. In
application of this doctrine the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) vests the executive arm of
government among others the power to prepare budget for each fiscal
year.

To prevent an arbitrary use of power however, the principle of
checks and balances was brought into play by the founding fathers
of the doctrine of separation of powers. By this principle, while
each arm of government has its separate powers, it behoves the
various arms of government to check each other to the extent that
the law allows to make sure no one arm or more is using its powers
arbitrarily nor encroaching on the powers of another arm(s). It is
to this end that the Constitution provides that while it is the
duty of the executive to prepare budget, it shall not be passed
into law unless and until it is approved by the National
assembly.

The legal framework for the budgetary process at the federal
level is governed mainly by sections 59, 80 and 81 of the
Constitution, the Fiscal responsibility Act, 2007 and the Finance
(Control and Management) Act, Cap F26. To kick off the budgetary
process, section 81(1) of the Constitution grants the President
power to prepare the estimates of the revenue and expenditure of
the Federation for each fiscal year. Section 80(2) of the
Constitution on the other hand provides that:

No money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Federation except to meet expenditure that is
charged upon the Fund by this Constitution or where the issues of
those money has been authorised by an Appropriation Act or an Act
passed in Pursuance of section 81 of this
Constitution

Allegations of budget padding have become a recurring decimal in
the budgetary process every year despite the clear provisions of
the Constitution. Only one conclusion can be drawn from a combined
reading of both sections 81(1) and 80(2) to wit-
the role of the National Assembly in the budgetary process is to
approve or reject a budget prepared by the executive and nothing
more.

It is therefore disturbing that passage of the budget into law
is delayed every year over arguments on whether or not the National
Assembly can alter the budget. In a Presidential system of
government like ours, the electorates vote for their preferred
choice of President based on who has a manifesto that is in sync
with the needs of the people at a particular time. However, the
President cannot implement his manifesto without funds and to
access funds, the National Assembly has to approve budget submitted
to it by the President. Where the National Assembly is allowed to
go on a voyage of altering the budget as it sees fit, it is no
longer the budget of the people but that of the National Assembly.
The spiral effect of this is that the executive may lack the
political will to implement the budget as it does not reflect its
intentions.

Allegations of budget padding or cutting are made every year
which causes an unnecessary delay in the passage of the budget
thereby making the economy and the people to suffer for what could
be avoided by simply approaching the Supreme Court for guidance on
whether it is within the powers of the National Assembly to make
unilateral adjustments to the budget. In 2012 former President
Goodluck Jonathan accused the 7^th National Assembly of
altering the budget to the extent that it could not be recognized
by the executive. In his words, ‘if you send your budget to the
National Assembly and they tear it to pieces and package what they
like, you start planning and managing the economy. We have
challenges every year. Another case in point is the ongoing
controversy surrounding the 2017 budget. The Minister of Works and
Housing Mr. Babatunde Fashola (SAN) has raised alarm on the
reduction and alteration of the budget submitted to the National
Assembly. According to him, road projects were removed among others
and in their place, primary healthcare centres, boreholes were
inserted. He further said it is unfair to Nigerians after public
hearings were conducted and consultations were made with the
lawmakers, the budget is still altered, cut or padded.

I am of the opinion therefore, that where the National Assembly
is not on the same page with the executive on the estimates for any
project, it can only withhold its power to approve or refuse to
pass the budget and send same back to the executive for alterations
to it deems necessary before it is passed into law. I am also of
the opinion that rather than engage itself in an exchange of words
with the executive over controversies on the budget, the National
Assembly should be focused on encouraging the executive to submit
its budget earlier than it does. In the United States of America,
the fiscal year begins in October but the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the Budget Act) requires that the
budget be presented to Congress on or before the first Monday in
February. This gives Congress ample time to scrutinize the budget.
This way, when the budget is finally passed, it reflects the needs
of the American people. The necessary Constitutional provisions
should therefore be amended to compel the executive to submit its
budget five, six months before the beginning of a fiscal year.
Where the National Assembly rather concerns itself with altering
the budget estimates submitted to it, it would be taking over the
constitutional responsibility of the executive thereby rendering
the doctrine of separation of powers under the Constitution
redundant and ineffective.

Adediji Mohammed LL. B can be reached on
adedijimohammed@yahoo.com

One of the guiding principles for the proper running of
any democracy is the doctrine of separation of powers. A doctrine
which provides that the three branches of government (executive,
legislature and judiciary) should be kept separate and each arm be
vested with separate powers to prevent an abuse of those powers. In
application of this doctrine the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) vests the executive arm of
government among others the power to prepare budget for each fiscal
year.

To prevent an arbitrary use of power however, the principle of
checks and balances was brought into play by the founding fathers
of the doctrine of separation of powers. By this principle, while
each arm of government has its separate powers, it behoves the
various arms of government to check each other to the extent that
the law allows to make sure no one arm or more is using its powers
arbitrarily nor encroaching on the powers of another arm(s). It is
to this end that the Constitution provides that while it is the
duty of the executive to prepare budget, it shall not be passed
into law unless and until it is approved by the National
assembly.

The legal framework for the budgetary process at the federal
level is governed mainly by sections 59, 80 and 81 of the
Constitution, the Fiscal responsibility Act, 2007 and the Finance
(Control and Management) Act, Cap F26. To kick off the budgetary
process, section 81(1) of the Constitution grants the President
power to prepare the estimates of the revenue and expenditure of
the Federation for each fiscal year. Section 80(2) of the
Constitution on the other hand provides that:

No money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Federation except to meet expenditure that is
charged upon the Fund by this Constitution or where the issues of
those money has been authorised by an Appropriation Act or an Act
passed in Pursuance of section 81 of this
Constitution

Allegations of budget padding have become a recurring decimal in
the budgetary process every year despite the clear provisions of
the Constitution. Only one conclusion can be drawn from a combined
reading of both sections 81(1) and 80(2) to wit-
the role of the National Assembly in the budgetary process is to
approve or reject a budget prepared by the executive and nothing
more.

It is therefore disturbing that passage of the budget into law
is delayed every year over arguments on whether or not the National
Assembly can alter the budget. In a Presidential system of
government like ours, the electorates vote for their preferred
choice of President based on who has a manifesto that is in sync
with the needs of the people at a particular time. However, the
President cannot implement his manifesto without funds and to
access funds, the National Assembly has to approve budget submitted
to it by the President. Where the National Assembly is allowed to
go on a voyage of altering the budget as it sees fit, it is no
longer the budget of the people but that of the National Assembly.
The spiral effect of this is that the executive may lack the
political will to implement the budget as it does not reflect its
intentions.

Allegations of budget padding or cutting are made every year
which causes an unnecessary delay in the passage of the budget
thereby making the economy and the people to suffer for what could
be avoided by simply approaching the Supreme Court for guidance on
whether it is within the powers of the National Assembly to make
unilateral adjustments to the budget. In 2012 former President
Goodluck Jonathan accused the 7^th National Assembly of
altering the budget to the extent that it could not be recognized
by the executive. In his words, ‘if you send your budget to the
National Assembly and they tear it to pieces and package what they
like, you start planning and managing the economy. We have
challenges every year. Another case in point is the ongoing
controversy surrounding the 2017 budget. The Minister of Works and
Housing Mr. Babatunde Fashola (SAN) has raised alarm on the
reduction and alteration of the budget submitted to the National
Assembly. According to him, road projects were removed among others
and in their place, primary healthcare centres, boreholes were
inserted. He further said it is unfair to Nigerians after public
hearings were conducted and consultations were made with the
lawmakers, the budget is still altered, cut or padded.

I am of the opinion therefore, that where the National Assembly
is not on the same page with the executive on the estimates for any
project, it can only withhold its power to approve or refuse to
pass the budget and send same back to the executive for alterations
to it deems necessary before it is passed into law. I am also of
the opinion that rather than engage itself in an exchange of words
with the executive over controversies on the budget, the National
Assembly should be focused on encouraging the executive to submit
its budget earlier than it does. In the United States of America,
the fiscal year begins in October but the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the Budget Act) requires that the
budget be presented to Congress on or before the first Monday in
February. This gives Congress ample time to scrutinize the budget.
This way, when the budget is finally passed, it reflects the needs
of the American people. The necessary Constitutional provisions
should therefore be amended to compel the executive to submit its
budget five, six months before the beginning of a fiscal year.
Where the National Assembly rather concerns itself with altering
the budget estimates submitted to it, it would be taking over the
constitutional responsibility of the executive thereby rendering
the doctrine of separation of powers under the Constitution
redundant and ineffective.

Adediji Mohammed LL. B can be reached on
adedijimohammed@yahoo.com