Human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), on Tuesday, faulted
the claim that a Federal High Court in Abuja had, last year,
affirmed the power of the National Assembly to increase budgetary
estimates submitted to it by the President.
Falana was the plaintiff in the suit in which Justice Gabriel
Kolawole delivered the judgment cited by the federal lawmakers that
the power of the National Assembly to alter the executive’s
budgetary estimates had been recognised by the court.
Also, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Chijioke Okoli;
Mr. Norrison Quakers (SAN), Emeka Ngige (SAN) and Prof. Kanyinsola
Ajayi (SAN) faulted the contention of the federal lawmakers that
the National Assembly had the right to introduce projects into the
budget prepared by the executive.
Okoli, Quakers, Ngige and Ajayi described a situation where the
legislators would alter the appropriation document in such a way
that the executive would not be able to implement the budget as
anomalous.
Falana explained in a statement on Tuesday that Justice Kolawole
never granted any power to the National Assembly to increase
budgetary proposals.
He said, “In the entire 22-page judgment, the learned trial
judge never said the National Assembly has the power to increase
any budget proposal submitted to it by the President.
“On the contrary, the Federal High Court made it categorically
clear that the National Assembly lacks the legislative powers to
prepare ‘budget estimates’ for the President or ‘disregard the
budget proposals laid before it and substitute it with its own
estimates’.”
He stated that despite dismissing the suit on the grounds that
he, the plaintiff, lacked the locus standi to institute it, the
court concurred with the submissions he canvassed in the suit.
Falana added that he had initiated an appeal to challenge the
dismissal of the suit.
“Even though I have taken the legal battle over the dismissal of
the case to the Court of Appeal, I wish to state, without any fear
of contradiction, that the learned trial judge concurred with my
submission that the Constitution has not vested the National
Assembly with powers to increase the budget,” he said.
Although the senior advocate explained that Justice Kolawole
stated in the judgment that the National Assembly was not expected
to be a rubber stamp parliament, the senior lawyer alleged that the
statement of the judge was twisted to give a “misleading”
impression that the power of the National Assembly to increase
budgetary estimates had been recognised by court.
Falana added, “The incontestable statement has since been
twisted to give the very erroneous impression that the power of the
National Assembly to increase the budget has been judicially
recognised.
“Thus, in a press statement credited to the National Assembly
last week, it was reported that ‘The Federal High Court has ruled
that the National Assembly has the power to increase or review
upward the budget estimates laid before it by the executive’.
“With respect, the summary of the decision of the Court by the
National Assembly is grossly misleading.”
Quoting the relevant portions of Justice Kolawole’s judgment,
Falana said by acknowledging that the National Assembly was not a
rubber stamp parliament, the court recognised the duty of the
legislature “to debate and make its informed inputs” into the
President’s budget proposals.
He contended that nowhere in the judgment did the court say
“that the National Assembly has the power to increase or insert new
items, like constituency projects, into the budget estimates
contained in any Appropriation Bill or Supplementary Bill prepared
and submitted to it by the President.”
According to him, sections 13 and 18 of the Fiscal
Responsibility Act No 31 of 2007, have addressed the lacuna in
Section 81 of the Constitution which provides for how the National
Assembly should handle the executive’s budgetary proposal.
He noted that the Fiscal Responsibility Act mandate the minister
of finance to seek inputs from the National Assembly and other
relevant statutory bodies in the preparation of the Medium Term
Expenditure Framework.
Falana insisted that the National Assembly could not prepare any
aspect of the budget estimates, lay it before itself, pass it and
ask the President to sign it.
The SAN stated, “And pursuant to Section 18 of the Act, the
Medium Term Expenditure Framework shall be the basis ‘for the
preparation of the estimates of revenue and expenditure to be
prepared and laid before the National Assembly under Section 81 of
the Constitution’.
“It is submitted that it is at the stage of preparing the Medium
Term Expenditure Framework that the members of the National
Assembly may influence the introduction of new items or inclusion
of projects to be executed in their constituencies.
“Therefore, the National Assembly cannot prepare any aspect of
the budget estimates, lay it before itself, pass same and then
request the President to sign it into law.
“Finally, to ensure that the preparation of the Appropriation
Bill is based on the Medium Term Expenditure Framework, passed by
the National Assembly, signed into law by the President and
implemented by the Executive arm of government Section 51 of the
Fiscal Responsibility Act has specifically clothed every citizen
with the necessary locus standi or legal capacity to enforce the
provisions of the law by obtaining prerogative orders or other
remedies at the Federal High Court, without having to show any
special particular interest.”
The senior advocate added, “In justifying the dismissal of the
suit, his lordship said the reliefs sought in the case qualified me
to be described as a ‘meddlesome interloper’!”
National Assembly’s act anomalous, says
Okoli
Another SAN and a former Chairman of the Lagos Branch of the
Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Chijioke Okoli (SAN), described the
National Assembly’s act of increasing the budgetary estimates
submitted to it by the executive arm of government as
anomalous.
In a telephone interview with one of our correspondents on
Tuesday, Okoli said the legislature had no business introducing new
projects into the budget.
He also challenged the executive arm of government to approach
the Supreme Court for a definitive interpretation of the relevant
provisions of the law.
Okoli added, “What we have in Nigeria is anomalous situation
where parliamentarians see themselves as executive officers; it
does not happen anywhere.
“In the United States of America, where we copied this from,
what obtains is that senators and representatives bring to bear
their influences on the executive to have the projects they are
interested in in their constituencies, put in the budget.
“Prof. Ben Nwabueze, who is an authority in constitutional law,
has taken that point before and said the legislature had no
business tinkering completely with the budget.
“They can say ‘this price is too much’. They have no business in
introducing new projects; that is an executive function.
“It is not the legislature that raises the money. So the
legislature is not in a position to amend when the projection falls
flat. That is an executive function.
“I think the problem too is with the executive. I would want the
executive to make bold its threat. The executive should go to the
Supreme Court for a definitive interpretation of these things.”
He traced the history of the act of the legislature tinkering
with the budget to the days of the David Mark as the Senate
President.
The SAN stated, “Some of us were adults when (Shehu) Shagari was
the President, we didn’t have this rubbish.
“It started when David Mark became the President of the Senate.
Because the President, Umar Yar’Adua’s election was massively
rigged, the Senate, in particular, became overbearing on the
executive and former President (Goodluck) Jonathan came in with his
problems. Because he wasn’t assertive, the National Assembly began
to take more than its fair share and now claiming executive
functions.”
Quakers, Ajayi, Ngige say legislators can’t insert new
projects, figures
Also, another senior advocate, Mr. Norrison Quakers, said the
National Assembly had no legal basis to either insert new figures
or items that were not in the budget presented before it for
approval by the executive.
He added that even when there was a need to make any alteration,
the lawmakers needed to engage with the executive.
Qakers stated, “Well, they have the power to review but they do
not have the power to insert either a figure or an item that was
not in the budget without the intervention of the executive.
“Let’s say for instance, if there is a need to review the
allocation to the Ministry of Power, there’s a need for an
interface between the minister and the National Assembly, not for
the purpose of inserting a figure or an item that was not provided
for. That’s the law and the law on that is very clear.
“Can they review? Yes. If, for instance, I present a budget of
say N10, it can either be reviewed upwards or it can be slashed
after the defence of the budget because the budget must be defended
anyway.
“But it is not right for the National Assembly to introduce
items that were not presented before them into the budget. If I
didn’t defend an item before you, why will you include it in the
budget that I presented?”
Another SAN, Prof. Kanyinsola Ajayi, described as dangerous a
situation where the National Assembly would review the budget to
render certain projections in it unrealistic or not
implementable.
According to him, such a situation is against the principle of
separation of power.
In his own reaction, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN) stated that the
federal lawmakers were not empowered to initiate new projects into
the budget.
Ngige said, “They do not have power to initiate totally new
projects outside what is contained in the appropriation bill. That
is the responsibility of the executive arm of government.
“But what the legislature is saying is that they will just
insert a project, for instance a cottage hospital in their village;
assign a certain amount there, for instance N30m. Who has done the
evaluation prior to that time? No body. Who has called for the
contract? These are the issues.
“There is no doubt that the legislature has the power to alter
but not in the sense of what they are doing now by inserting fresh
items into the budget or removing projects sub-heads from the
appropriation bill.
“If for instance, government budgeted N100bn for the Second
Niger Bridge, they can bring it down to say N80bn if they discover
that it is inflated, but they cannot say they will make it N200bn
because they do not have the facility to do that.
“In reducing any amount proposed in the budget, they should
carry the executive along. Since most members of the National
Assembly and ministers belong to the same party, they can have
their party meetings where they can present and discuss projects
they want to be reflected in the budget and send them to the
executive. Even members of the opposition can send theirs through
the principal officers of the National Assembly.”
On the ongoing faceoff between the National Assembly and the
Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Mr. Babatunde Fashola, where
the minister complained about the reduction in the amount proposed
in the budget for key projects, Ngige argued that the lawmakers
were wrong.
He stated, “If the NASS had only reduced the cost, it would have
been okay but they reduced the cost and transferred the money to
new projects for the ministry. I think that is wrong.
‘‘If they feel that the money for the Second Niger Bridge was
inflated or was not utilised last year, they can bring it down. But
that should have been raised during the public hearing. Did they
take the minister up on those issues during the public hearing
before they reduced the amount in the budget?”
Also, Prof. Fidelis Oditah (SAN) argued that the process of
passing a budget was just like passing any other executive bill,
saying the National Assembly had power to review the budget in a
sensible way.
Oditah added, “If there is an executive bill, is the National
Assembly not entitled to make changes and introduce new provisions
into such an executive bill? Why then should the provision in
relation to the budget be different?
“Of course, it may be unwise or inconvenient for the National
Assembly to slash the budget in a way that makes certain budget
incapable of being implemented, which is regrettable, but that is
the National Assembly that we have elected.’’
N’ Assembly right to review budget
–Ozekhome
In his reaction, another SAN, Chief Mike Ozekhome, said the
National Assembly was right to review the budget estimates
submitted to it by the executive since it was not a mere rubber
stamp.
Ozekhome said, “Based on Sections 4, 59, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and
85, it is the National Assembly that controls the purse and revenue
of the federation. It is only the National Assembly that can permit
the executive and the judiciary to make expenditure. Any expenses
incurred outside the National Assembly by the executive is even an
impeachable offence.
“This is so since the National Assembly is not a robotic rubber
stamp of executive bills. When the executive initiates a bill which
is actually the budget, the National Assembly can add to, subtract
from, multiply, alter, amend and carry out a surgical operation on
figures and projects given to it by the executive.”
Punch
Human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), on Tuesday, faulted
the claim that a Federal High Court in Abuja had, last year,
affirmed the power of the National Assembly to increase budgetary
estimates submitted to it by the President.
Falana was the plaintiff in the suit in which Justice Gabriel
Kolawole delivered the judgment cited by the federal lawmakers that
the power of the National Assembly to alter the executive’s
budgetary estimates had been recognised by the court.
Also, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Chijioke Okoli;
Mr. Norrison Quakers (SAN), Emeka Ngige (SAN) and Prof. Kanyinsola
Ajayi (SAN) faulted the contention of the federal lawmakers that
the National Assembly had the right to introduce projects into the
budget prepared by the executive.
Okoli, Quakers, Ngige and Ajayi described a situation where the
legislators would alter the appropriation document in such a way
that the executive would not be able to implement the budget as
anomalous.
Falana explained in a statement on Tuesday that Justice Kolawole
never granted any power to the National Assembly to increase
budgetary proposals.
He said, “In the entire 22-page judgment, the learned trial
judge never said the National Assembly has the power to increase
any budget proposal submitted to it by the President.
“On the contrary, the Federal High Court made it categorically
clear that the National Assembly lacks the legislative powers to
prepare ‘budget estimates’ for the President or ‘disregard the
budget proposals laid before it and substitute it with its own
estimates’.”
He stated that despite dismissing the suit on the grounds that
he, the plaintiff, lacked the locus standi to institute it, the
court concurred with the submissions he canvassed in the suit.
Falana added that he had initiated an appeal to challenge the
dismissal of the suit.
“Even though I have taken the legal battle over the dismissal of
the case to the Court of Appeal, I wish to state, without any fear
of contradiction, that the learned trial judge concurred with my
submission that the Constitution has not vested the National
Assembly with powers to increase the budget,” he said.
Although the senior advocate explained that Justice Kolawole
stated in the judgment that the National Assembly was not expected
to be a rubber stamp parliament, the senior lawyer alleged that the
statement of the judge was twisted to give a “misleading”
impression that the power of the National Assembly to increase
budgetary estimates had been recognised by court.
Falana added, “The incontestable statement has since been
twisted to give the very erroneous impression that the power of the
National Assembly to increase the budget has been judicially
recognised.
“Thus, in a press statement credited to the National Assembly
last week, it was reported that ‘The Federal High Court has ruled
that the National Assembly has the power to increase or review
upward the budget estimates laid before it by the executive’.
“With respect, the summary of the decision of the Court by the
National Assembly is grossly misleading.”
Quoting the relevant portions of Justice Kolawole’s judgment,
Falana said by acknowledging that the National Assembly was not a
rubber stamp parliament, the court recognised the duty of the
legislature “to debate and make its informed inputs” into the
President’s budget proposals.
He contended that nowhere in the judgment did the court say
“that the National Assembly has the power to increase or insert new
items, like constituency projects, into the budget estimates
contained in any Appropriation Bill or Supplementary Bill prepared
and submitted to it by the President.”
According to him, sections 13 and 18 of the Fiscal
Responsibility Act No 31 of 2007, have addressed the lacuna in
Section 81 of the Constitution which provides for how the National
Assembly should handle the executive’s budgetary proposal.
He noted that the Fiscal Responsibility Act mandate the minister
of finance to seek inputs from the National Assembly and other
relevant statutory bodies in the preparation of the Medium Term
Expenditure Framework.
Falana insisted that the National Assembly could not prepare any
aspect of the budget estimates, lay it before itself, pass it and
ask the President to sign it.
The SAN stated, “And pursuant to Section 18 of the Act, the
Medium Term Expenditure Framework shall be the basis ‘for the
preparation of the estimates of revenue and expenditure to be
prepared and laid before the National Assembly under Section 81 of
the Constitution’.
“It is submitted that it is at the stage of preparing the Medium
Term Expenditure Framework that the members of the National
Assembly may influence the introduction of new items or inclusion
of projects to be executed in their constituencies.
“Therefore, the National Assembly cannot prepare any aspect of
the budget estimates, lay it before itself, pass same and then
request the President to sign it into law.
“Finally, to ensure that the preparation of the Appropriation
Bill is based on the Medium Term Expenditure Framework, passed by
the National Assembly, signed into law by the President and
implemented by the Executive arm of government Section 51 of the
Fiscal Responsibility Act has specifically clothed every citizen
with the necessary locus standi or legal capacity to enforce the
provisions of the law by obtaining prerogative orders or other
remedies at the Federal High Court, without having to show any
special particular interest.”
The senior advocate added, “In justifying the dismissal of the
suit, his lordship said the reliefs sought in the case qualified me
to be described as a ‘meddlesome interloper’!”
National Assembly’s act anomalous, says
Okoli
Another SAN and a former Chairman of the Lagos Branch of the
Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Chijioke Okoli (SAN), described the
National Assembly’s act of increasing the budgetary estimates
submitted to it by the executive arm of government as
anomalous.
In a telephone interview with one of our correspondents on
Tuesday, Okoli said the legislature had no business introducing new
projects into the budget.
He also challenged the executive arm of government to approach
the Supreme Court for a definitive interpretation of the relevant
provisions of the law.
Okoli added, “What we have in Nigeria is anomalous situation
where parliamentarians see themselves as executive officers; it
does not happen anywhere.
“In the United States of America, where we copied this from,
what obtains is that senators and representatives bring to bear
their influences on the executive to have the projects they are
interested in in their constituencies, put in the budget.
“Prof. Ben Nwabueze, who is an authority in constitutional law,
has taken that point before and said the legislature had no
business tinkering completely with the budget.
“They can say ‘this price is too much’. They have no business in
introducing new projects; that is an executive function.
“It is not the legislature that raises the money. So the
legislature is not in a position to amend when the projection falls
flat. That is an executive function.
“I think the problem too is with the executive. I would want the
executive to make bold its threat. The executive should go to the
Supreme Court for a definitive interpretation of these things.”
He traced the history of the act of the legislature tinkering
with the budget to the days of the David Mark as the Senate
President.
The SAN stated, “Some of us were adults when (Shehu) Shagari was
the President, we didn’t have this rubbish.
“It started when David Mark became the President of the Senate.
Because the President, Umar Yar’Adua’s election was massively
rigged, the Senate, in particular, became overbearing on the
executive and former President (Goodluck) Jonathan came in with his
problems. Because he wasn’t assertive, the National Assembly began
to take more than its fair share and now claiming executive
functions.”
Quakers, Ajayi, Ngige say legislators can’t insert new
projects, figures
Also, another senior advocate, Mr. Norrison Quakers, said the
National Assembly had no legal basis to either insert new figures
or items that were not in the budget presented before it for
approval by the executive.
He added that even when there was a need to make any alteration,
the lawmakers needed to engage with the executive.
Qakers stated, “Well, they have the power to review but they do
not have the power to insert either a figure or an item that was
not in the budget without the intervention of the executive.
“Let’s say for instance, if there is a need to review the
allocation to the Ministry of Power, there’s a need for an
interface between the minister and the National Assembly, not for
the purpose of inserting a figure or an item that was not provided
for. That’s the law and the law on that is very clear.
“Can they review? Yes. If, for instance, I present a budget of
say N10, it can either be reviewed upwards or it can be slashed
after the defence of the budget because the budget must be defended
anyway.
“But it is not right for the National Assembly to introduce
items that were not presented before them into the budget. If I
didn’t defend an item before you, why will you include it in the
budget that I presented?”
Another SAN, Prof. Kanyinsola Ajayi, described as dangerous a
situation where the National Assembly would review the budget to
render certain projections in it unrealistic or not
implementable.
According to him, such a situation is against the principle of
separation of power.
In his own reaction, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN) stated that the
federal lawmakers were not empowered to initiate new projects into
the budget.
Ngige said, “They do not have power to initiate totally new
projects outside what is contained in the appropriation bill. That
is the responsibility of the executive arm of government.
“But what the legislature is saying is that they will just
insert a project, for instance a cottage hospital in their village;
assign a certain amount there, for instance N30m. Who has done the
evaluation prior to that time? No body. Who has called for the
contract? These are the issues.
“There is no doubt that the legislature has the power to alter
but not in the sense of what they are doing now by inserting fresh
items into the budget or removing projects sub-heads from the
appropriation bill.
“If for instance, government budgeted N100bn for the Second
Niger Bridge, they can bring it down to say N80bn if they discover
that it is inflated, but they cannot say they will make it N200bn
because they do not have the facility to do that.
“In reducing any amount proposed in the budget, they should
carry the executive along. Since most members of the National
Assembly and ministers belong to the same party, they can have
their party meetings where they can present and discuss projects
they want to be reflected in the budget and send them to the
executive. Even members of the opposition can send theirs through
the principal officers of the National Assembly.”
On the ongoing faceoff between the National Assembly and the
Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Mr. Babatunde Fashola, where
the minister complained about the reduction in the amount proposed
in the budget for key projects, Ngige argued that the lawmakers
were wrong.
He stated, “If the NASS had only reduced the cost, it would have
been okay but they reduced the cost and transferred the money to
new projects for the ministry. I think that is wrong.
‘‘If they feel that the money for the Second Niger Bridge was
inflated or was not utilised last year, they can bring it down. But
that should have been raised during the public hearing. Did they
take the minister up on those issues during the public hearing
before they reduced the amount in the budget?”
Also, Prof. Fidelis Oditah (SAN) argued that the process of
passing a budget was just like passing any other executive bill,
saying the National Assembly had power to review the budget in a
sensible way.
Oditah added, “If there is an executive bill, is the National
Assembly not entitled to make changes and introduce new provisions
into such an executive bill? Why then should the provision in
relation to the budget be different?
“Of course, it may be unwise or inconvenient for the National
Assembly to slash the budget in a way that makes certain budget
incapable of being implemented, which is regrettable, but that is
the National Assembly that we have elected.’’
N’ Assembly right to review budget
–Ozekhome
In his reaction, another SAN, Chief Mike Ozekhome, said the
National Assembly was right to review the budget estimates
submitted to it by the executive since it was not a mere rubber
stamp.
Ozekhome said, “Based on Sections 4, 59, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and
85, it is the National Assembly that controls the purse and revenue
of the federation. It is only the National Assembly that can permit
the executive and the judiciary to make expenditure. Any expenses
incurred outside the National Assembly by the executive is even an
impeachable offence.
“This is so since the National Assembly is not a robotic rubber
stamp of executive bills. When the executive initiates a bill which
is actually the budget, the National Assembly can add to, subtract
from, multiply, alter, amend and carry out a surgical operation on
figures and projects given to it by the executive.”
Punch
Read more https://www.nairalaw.com/nassembly-lacks-power-to-insert-new-projects-into-budget-sans/