Tag: President Muhammadu Buhari

In his military days, President Muhammadu Buhari had the reputation of being unbending and unyielding. But since swapping his khaki for voluminous babanrigas, he is showing increasing flexibility – even on matters he clearly disapproves of.

A case in point is his admission mid-week that he signed the 2018 national budget reluctantly, as withholding assent would slow down the economic recovery process.

His anger over alterations made by the National Assembly to the proposals submitted by the executive have been well covered. Reporting the legislators to the Nigerian public, he said: “The National Assembly made cuts amounting to N347 billion in the allocations to 4,700 projects submitted to them for consideration and introduced 6,403 projects of their own amounting to N578 billion.

“Many of the projects cut are critical and may be difficult, if not impossible, to implement with the reduced allocation.”

In specific terms, significant cuts were made in allocations to key infrastructural projects like the Mambilla Power Plant, Second Niger Bridge, East-West Road, Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Itakpe-Ajaokuta Rail and Enugu Airport, to name a few.

Buhari’s complaints have become part of an annual ritual. In June last year, then Acting President Yemi Osinbanjo, grumbled about the legislators not having the power to distort the proposals sent to them by the executive branch. Despite his displeasure at the modifications, he still signed the ‘deformed’ appropriations bill into law.

Expectedly, the legislators have retorted that the constitution didn’t direct them to rubberstamp budget proposals from the executive.

Indeed, the United States’ constitution from which the Nigerian one is largely fashioned, originally gave the ‘power of the purse’ to the legislature. In the course of their political evolution some powers in the process were ceded to the executive branch – allowing it to initiate proposals to be treated by congress.

The 1999 Nigerian constitution requires the president to play that agenda-setting role by submitting a budget proposal to the National Assembly which cannot become law until it is passed by both houses and signed.

Submitting those proposals to the assembly presupposes more than a perfunctory role in the process for the lawmakers. The budget is just like any other bill the executive might initiate and send to the legislature. It could end up as something radically different from what was sent in.

One of the earliest bills proposed to the assembly by former President Olusegun Obasanjo when he just assumed office, was an anti-graft legislation fashioned after a similarly stern legislation in Singapore. By the time the bill had passed through the prescribed readings, it was clear to that class of legislators that were they to pass it as proposed, a whole bunch of then would shortly become inmates in Kirikiri or Kuje prisons.

They then approved a watered-down version which Obasanjo gladly signed – knowing there was nothing of the sort on our books at that point in time.

It is illogical to think that the appropriations bill which originates from the executive is such a unique legislation that it should make its way through the legislature – untouched – just for ceremony. At least the constitution doesn’t say so.

If it is not to be tampered with then there’s really no point in going through the whole rigmarole of the president leading an entourage to lay the document before the assembly.

Across the world there is no uniform template that prescribes how the process should run. Each country determines what works for it. The South African constitution, for instance, gives parliament powers to hold hearings and call government officials and other experts to give evidence. But the legislature and its committees do not presently have the right to suggest changes to the budget.

However, many countries with the parliamentary system allow amendment powers. In Australia and the UK, changes have been made – although they are not very significant.

That said, it would be very naïve to think that such a powerful document that directly impacts the wellbeing of the people, can be insulated from the political calculations and realities of present day Nigeria. It doesn’t happen in the real world.

In the US, the budget is often a political football that sometimes results in the government shutting down when the opposing sides are unwilling to compromise.

While the Presidency would like to believe its proposals should be untouched, its position is undercut by a March 2016 ruling by the Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja in a case instituted by Femi Falana, SAN.

The court ruled that the National Assembly has powers to add, reduce and review budget estimates laid before it by the executive.

Obviously, this would not be the final word until the Supreme Court weighs in with its opinion. Until that happens, Abuja’s game of political hostage-taking and ransom payment would continue.

Buhari and his advisers have to realise that however good their budget intentions may be, they would never become reality if they fail to acknowledge that their power over the process is limited. Indeed, the advantage is skewed in the direction of the legislature.

Politics is a game of interests. The executive is interested in ensuring that its proposals return largely unscathed. How can it ensure that this happens without what appear to be arbitrary additions and subtractions?

The key clearly lies in robust consultations between the arms. In each budget cycle we are greeted with headlines about legislators threatening ministers and heads of agencies to appear to defend their estimates.

In this last process, Buhari at some point had to order his officials to honour the invitations, while one or two ministers were engaged in a very public war of words with those supposed to approve their budgets.

This being Nigeria, we understand this process of consultation and engagement has been abused in the past as a means of extorting money from ministers and heads of agency for passing their budget. Lobbying simply became a dirty word that signified carting about millions in Ghana-Must-Go bags in exchange for passing the budget.

Elsewhere, lobbying isn’t necessarily about bribing lawmakers or other top officials with cash. It is about groups, companies, industries – even countries, trying to influence government policies and actions to protect their interests. Lobbying has become a multi-billion dollar industry across the world and is often properly regulated to guard against political corruption.

If your interests are important to you, then you have to lobby those who have the power to further those goals or frustrate them. In the US and elsewhere this process of give and take often involves the executive accommodating the interests of influential lawmakers by providing projects for the legislator’s constituency – in what is referred to as pork-barrel legislation. The truth is lawmakers are also politicians who fave voters from time to time, and need to impress them with what they have accomplished on their behalf.

The bastardised form of that arrangement is what is now referred to as ‘constituency projects.’

Until a creative way of harmonizing executive and legislative interests is worked out, the National Assembly would continue to find ways of stuffing the budget with projects the Presidency never ordered – and there’s not much Buhari or any other president can do about it.