The House of Representatives yesterday snubbed the 2013 supplementary budget sent to it by President Goodluck Jonathan.
It described the bill as an “alien”, “a stranger” and indeed, “an interloper” in the constitutional arrangement.
According to the lawmakers, the preparation and, presentation of the document failed all constitutional processes.
The lawmakers said Section 81 of the Constitution is clearly against them amending the bill. They advised President Goodluck Jonathan, being the only authority constitutionally empowered to initiate a money bill, to resubmit a proper bill.
The consideration of the Appropriation Act (Amendment) Bill 2013 that seeks to appropriate N4,987,382,196,690.00 was listed for the third time for second reading yesterday, following the conclusion of work on it by the Committees on Rules and Business, and Justice/ Judiciary that were mandated to ascertain the constitutionality of the bill.
Yakubu Dogara (PDP, Bauchi) on June 5 raised a constitutional point of order, citing Section 81 (1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. He observed that the Appropriation Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill is more of a new 2013 Appropriation Bill than an Amendment Bill 2013.
Dogara described it as 2013 Appropriation Bill No. 2 as the amendment bill was in three volumes and N161,771,089 in excess of the 2013 Appropriation Act.
The Chairman, Committee on Rules and Business, Albert Sam-Tsokwa (PDP, Taraba), presenting the report, said though the President was constitutionally empowered to initiate such bills, it failed constitutional due diligence in both its preparation and presentation to the National Assembly.
Speaker Aminu Tambuwal did not entertain debates on the issue – in line with House rules – after Sam-Tsokwa’s presentation. The Speaker sustained Dogara’s point of order, jettisoning the consideration of the bill.
Sam-Tsokwa, in his presentation jointly prepared with Ali Ahmad (PDP, Kwara), Chairman, Committee on Justice, said the constitutionality of the supplementary budget bill was examined from two fronts.
According to him, the Committees wanted to verify whether an Appropriation Act is amendable.
Citing Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution to defend the position of the report, he said: “In a constitutional democracy such as ours, the power to do or forbear the doing of an act by any of the arms of government, especially and particularly the Legislative and Executive Arms, is donated, demarcated, circumscribed and or prescribed by the Constitution.
“While Parliament is empowered to make laws generally through Bills initiated from within or without, the Constitution explicitly imposes solely on Mr. President, in section 81 thereof, the duty to initiate an Appropriation Bill.
“It is very clear, therefore, that an Appropriation Bill or its variant, a Supplementary Appropriation Bill, can only be introduced in Parliament by Mr. President or in the case of the state, the governor.
“A community reading of section 81 (1) (2) and (4) of the Constitution creates a very strong impression and feeling in the mind that the Constitution does not favour, admit of or even contemplate the amendment of an Appropriation Act, save vide a Supplementary Appropriation Act.
“It would appear, therefore, that while the Constitution contemplates and envisages a situation where there may arise a need to supplement the funds appropriated in an Appropriation Act, it does not do so with respect and regard to reducing or diminishing the funds appropriated in an Appropriation Act by way of an amendment.
“On a strict and austere reading of Section 81 (1), (2) and (4) of the Constitution, therefore, it will be difficult to conclude that the Constitution admits of an amendment to an Appropriation Act, save by way of a Supplementary Appropriation.
“However, it may legitimately be observed and even argued that an Appropriation Act, not withstanding its special constitutional flavour and colouration bestowed on it by section 81 (1), (2) and (4) of the Constitution, is, and remains like any Act of Parliament, an Act of Parliament.
“Being an Act of Parliament, therefore, an Appropriation Act, by the general powers of Parliament under section 4 of the Constitution and Order 12 of the House. Standing Orders, 7th Edition 2011, no doubt, be subject to Amendment.
“Of course, we have noted earlier that a Supplementary Appropriation Act is an amendment Act, for all intents and purposes to the Appropriation Act it seeks to supplement.
“The answer to our question is, therefore, in the affirmative”.
However, the lawmakers were keen on the constitutionality of the amendment bill and sought answers from the constitution itself. “Now, is the Appropriation Act 2013 Amendment Bill constitutional in the circumstance?”, Sam-Tsokwa asked,
He said, in this circumstance, the National Assembly would be working against the Constitution if it attempts to amend the bill as there was nothing to amend or repeal in the 2013 Appropriation Act.
Besides, he noted that Mr. President, being the only authority constitutionally empowered to initiate a money Bill, may wish to resubmit a proper Bill as Section 81 clearly ties the hands of Parliament.
He explained the flaws inherent in the presentation of the bill, saying the document communicated to the House of Representatives, apart from carrying the title “Appropriation Act 2013 Amendment Bill” and the Bill’s Long Title, has nothing to show that it is a document seeking to amend or repeal and re-enact the 2013 Appropriation Act.
He said: “The purported Amendment Bill, a five clause Bill, is completely and totally silent on what and which sections of the 2013 Appropriation Act it seeks to amend and or repeal. So also is it silent on the schedules or what aspects of the schedules to the 2013 Act it seeks to amend and/or repeal.
“Members may wish to note that while the 2013 Appropriation Act appropriates the total sum of N4,987,220,425,601.00 for the financial year 2013, the purported 2013 Appropriation Act (Amendment) Bill 2013 seeks to appropriate a total sum of N4,987,382,196,690.00.
“Clearly, what the Amendment Bill 2013 seeks to appropriate is more than what was appropriated for the 2013 fiscal year in the 2013 Appropriation Act, that is to say, the Executive would appear to be seeking additional funds.
“Obviously, this cannot be achieved through an Amendment Bill. The answer lies in a Supplementary Appropriation under Section 81(4) of the Constitution.
“At best, the Appropriation Act 2013 Amendment Bill of Mr. President, for want of a better description and or expression, is, in the words of Hon. Dogara a “2013 Appropriation Bill No. 2, an alien, a stranger or, indeed, an interloper in our constitutional arrangement.
“Mr. President’s intents and purposes are well communicated and conveyed in his letter of 14/3/2013 but the companion of the said letter, voluminous as it is, in three fat volumes, seeking to amend the 2013 Appropriation Act failed in that mission and therefore amends or attempts to amend nothing.
“Mr. President, being the only authority constitutionally endowed and empowered to initiate a money Bill, may wish to resubmit a proper Bill as section 81 clearly ties the hands of Parliament”
Spokesman of the House, Zakari Mohammed (PDP, Kwara) had, shortly before the House went on the recess noted that the scope of the amendment made it seem the budget had not been passed in the first place.
“Amendment means there was a law on ground that has defects but with the level of amendment requested, it is as if a new budget is to be passed. Do not forget that a budget had been signed and if someone is saying that because an amendment has not been passed he won’t implement the budget, then there is a problem,” he said.
Sam-Tsokwa recalled that Speaker Tambuwal on March 19 read a communication dated Wednesday 14th March 2013 from President Jonathan to the House.
He said: “The communication forwarded what Mr. President described as “a copy each, of the 2013 Amendment Budget Proposal and 2013 Subsidy Reinvestment Programme (SURE-P) Amendment Budget Proposal”.
“Being a Money Bill, at least so the communication declared, the document passed for First Reading in keeping with our Rules. The Bill was subsequently scheduled for Second Reading.
“Thus, on Wednesday the 5th day of June 2013, the Leader of the House, Hon. Akande-Adeola moved that the Bill be read a second time.
“Interrupting the debate on the motion in line with our Rules, Hon. Yakubu Dogara rising to a constitutional point of order, drew attention to section 8 1(1), (2) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and’ observed that the Appropriation Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill is more of a new 2013 Appropriation Bill than an Amendment Bill 2013.
“Mr. Speaker entertained comments on the constitutional point of Order from some Members and ruled that being a constitutional issue, the matter be and was referred to the House Committees on Rules and Business, Justice and Judiciary for the further guidance of the House”.
