By SUNDAY ODIBASHI
Unilateral alteration of allocations or introduction of new items in the appropriation bill by the National Assembly has become a ritual the lawmakers cannot resist the temptation in Nigeria’s budget system. The phenomenon has not only been generating frictions between the legislature and the executive but has also made budget implementation incoherent since the contemporary democratic dispensation in the country.
The seeming legislative unavoidable religion in Nigeria’s budget system since 1999 often culminate into bloated annual budget and relative usurpation of executive authorities in budget procedures in spite of specified constitutional provisions, basic principles of governance and fundamentals of budget systems.
The irony of routine alterations in budgets by the National Assembly without consultation with the executive complicates the basic principles of separation of powers and checks and balances between the three arms of government.
The complication tends to stifle the powers of the President in coordinating governance in all its ramifications.
The President can seldom resist assenting to the legislated budget, otherwise, the Legislature could veto such withholding of assent after a specified period and the enacted budget could become law with approval of two-third majority of the lawmakers without further recourse to the President.
More so, assenting to the budget and not implementing the annual financial plan as contained in blue print could constitute gross misconduct or an impeachable offence as may be defined by the legislators. Accordingly, in all the complications of budget conflict, the legislators seemingly enjoy more constitutional powers to coerce the distorted budget on the President, which many consider a symptomatic credence of legislative tyranny.
The seeming impasse between the legislature and the executive over the 2017 budget exemplify a reflex of attempts to resist the inherent distortional budget system of the National Assembly.
President Muhammadu Buhari had on December 14, 2016, presented a budget proposal of N7.298 trillion to the National Assembly; in June 2017, the legislature passed the 2017 Appropriation Bill, unilaterally raising the figure from to N7.44 trillion.
The Presidency had questioned the powers of the National Assembly to unilaterally increase the budget, introducing new items.
Beyond the bounds of governance, actors in civil society also protested the alterations in the budget, requesting Acting President Yemi Osinbajo not to assent to the 2017 budget as passed by the National Assembly until proper scrutiny, expunging of wasteful spending and ‘paddings’ were done.
However, Acting President Osinbajo signed the budget into law on Monday, June 12, 2017, after President Buhari was said to have directed him from London to sign the 2017 Appropriation Act.
National Daily inquiry revealed that in budget systems, the legislature may revise the executive budget in any manner it wishes only in a parliamentary government where the executives are also members of the legislature. In that case, there is no separation of powers.
In a presidential system, the legislature may only delete or reduce budget items, they may not add new items or increase amounts.
Some stakeholders have argued, however, “if the legislature… decides to increase appropriations, it must provide for the raising of a corresponding amount of additional revenue by levying taxes.”
Further inquiry indicated that in major types of budget, viz, Legislative budget, executive budget or a combination of both responsible for their preparations; the legislative budget is prepared by a standing committee of the legislature which sits interim between sessions.
Stakeholders have contended that the method maintains unimpaired the legislature’s control over finances; but places budget preparation in the hands of those who are neither familiar with the needs of departments nor responsible for their administration.
It is observable that in Nigeria, no state adopts the legislative budget but noticeable in a few local governments.
Moreover, it was revealed that the executive budget is prepared under the direct supervision of the President or Governor who has the responsibility for proposing taxes and the allocation of the proceeds for the best interests of the government and the people as a whole.
“Besides insuring fairness, the executive budget is a means whereby the Chief executive may exert control over all phases of the government,” it was declared.
In the budget procedure, it was indicated that the preliminary stage of preparing executive budget is handled by a budget director who has charge of a bureau or office.
It was further indicated that if the funds became exhausted before the end of the fiscal year, it was customary for the executive to request the legislature to make supplementary or “deficiency” appropriation.
The 2017 financial plan which the Federal Government tagged “Budget of recovery and Growth” is 20.4 per cent higher than 2016 budget.
The inherent projections in the budget: Benchmark of crude oil price $42.5 per barrel; Oil production estimate, 2.2 million barrels per day; average exchange rate, N305 to $1.
The aggregate revenue available to fund the budget was put at N4.94 trillion; deficit N2.36 trillion (about 2.18% of GDP).
It was projected that the deficit will be financed mainly by borrowing which is projected to be about N2.32 trillion.
The budget indicated that N1.7 trillion will be borrowed from external sources while N1.254 trillion will be raised from the domestic market.
Debt servicing was put at N1.66 trillion; Non-debt recurrent expenditure N2.99 trillion; and Capital expenditure N2.18 trillion (including capital in Statutory Transfers).
Besides the flaw in the budget procedure, the 2017 budget has inherent components that will plunge Nigeria into debt crisis in the long run. More so, when the federal government did not make clear projects on how to re-activate the production capacity of the Nigerian economy. The country’s economy has been on the inertia of high consumption with minimal production or wealth creation in the domestic environment and preponderant reliance on importation.
The economic malady has been exacerbated by the surging recession, as the debt servicing burden is also being increased.