Bringing sanity to budgeting process

WHAT had looked like an impending show down between President Umaru Yar’Adua and the National Assembly over the 2008 Appropriation Bill was at the end of the day amicably resolved. The President gave his long-withheld assent to the controversial bill after the parley he had with the leadership of the National Assembly. It was a political settlement of a problem the President was reportedly getting poised to solve legally at the Supreme Court. The end result, however, is that fundamental issues that should have been frontally tackled and sorted out were simply parried. One does not, therefore, need to be a soothsayer to predict that the issues will crop up again because they have not been well resolved.

THE National Assembly made far-reaching changes in the appropriation bill and President Yar’Adua believed that it exceeded the constitutional limits of its powers by so doing. He saw many of the changes as usurpation of his powers. He was uncomfortable with the “unacceptable distortions” in the budget after the legislators had tinkered with it.

THE National Assembly, on its own part, maintained that it was not a rubber stamp. It stated, emphatically, that the executive had the responsibility of proposing the budget and the legislature the responsibility of appropriating funds for projects. It said the National Assembly was not bound to accept the President’s proposal and pass it without some adjustments. Before the deadlock was broken, the National Assembly was reported to be giving active consideration to the last option of overriding the presidential veto. And as a counter-measure, the President was said to be preparing to place the issue before the Supreme Court so that it could determine the extent and limits of the powers of each arm of government as far as appropriation is concerned.

THE manner in which the stalemate was resolved has been variously eulogised by officials of both the executive and legislative arms of government. What we consider unfortunate in it all is that a recurring problem has again been papered over. Past President Olusegun Obasanjo had his own style. When confronted with a similar situation, he would sign the bill into law but refuse to implement it. In keeping with his own mantra of the rule of law, Yar’Adua opted for another approach. He appeared insistent on a budget he could implement and an economic policy he could defend. At the end of the day, however, it was expediency that gained ascendancy over all other considerations. The logical resolution of a crucial issue was again deferred sine die.

THE National Assembly is certainly not a rubber stamp. If it cannot critically examine and effect constructive adjustments in government’s expenditure pattern, it has not justified its raison d’etre. Its power to do this is, however, not without limits. The Presidency, in its own case, listed certain aspects of the budget in which it maintained that the legislature erred. These include initiation of capital projects, insertion of new vote heads and increase in personnel costs. How proper is it for the legislature to initiate capital projects without consultation with the executive that has the responsibility for the design, costing, execution and supervision of such projects? Constitutionally, it is the responsibility of the executive to initiate and implement the budget. In considering the appropriation bill, does the legislature have the authority to rework it in a manner that distorts the projections and economic policy of the executive? A budget is primarily a plan. It is the President that takes the rap if it fails.

THE public service bureaucracy is the engine of the executive arm of government. It works directly with and reports to the executive. Personnel costs are computed on the basis of the number and calibre of staff in the various ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). The bureaucrats who prepare the budget ensure that salary increments, anticipated promotions and other relevant considerations are factored into their calculations. What they put in the budget, as personnel costs, is what the executive forwards to the legislature to consider. On what basis then can the legislature effect an increase in personnel costs when there is no report of any shortfall resulting from any omission or miscalculation? This should be a subject of special investigation because it smacks of fraud.

THE presidency also rightly objected to what it saw as padding of the budget with new projects. It is unfortunate that through the collusion of committees of the National Assembly, some MDAs have been getting what they could not obtain through due process. The budget of every government establishment is routed through prescribed channels. It is cross-checked and sanctioned before it gets to the National Assembly through the Presidency. By including new projects in the budgets of some MDAs, the National Assembly that should call erring establishments to order, has been bypassing the budgeting process. It has gone beyond its constitutionally assigned roles by introducing new projects to Appropriation Bill. In the Nigerian context, it appears budget defence has lost its meaning.

IF the president is really intent on putting an end to the culture of budget padding, he should not have baulked at the legal option. He needs to place the issue before the Supreme Court for a clear-cut pronouncement if he wants to strengthen his position. He needs this step to show the National Assembly the limits of its powers in the matter of appropriation. It is one step that will check the accumulation of excess funds for sharing among officials and their so-called overseers. It is one step that will greatly bring sanity to the budgeting process. Until this is done, vital objectives of government will continue to be frustrated.

bamaiyi sees the light

THE Nigerian prison is a very dark place. The small cells are as crowded as a pig pen and almost extremely dirty. It is, therefore, not surprising that some men, especially those used to opulent living rooms the size of a football field, lose their bearings. Lieutenant General Ishaya Bamaiyi was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and spent nine years on remand. He told the Oputa Human Rights panel that he was being persecuted because he was against Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, a retired general, becoming the nation’s president. He said he wanted a complete civilian to take over from the military regime. General Bamaiyi made the same claim several times during his trial. He said Chief Obasanjo was told about his opposition to his candidature after he became president and that he decided to get savagely even with him. He made the same allegation of persecution only two months ago. General Bamaiyi was released from prison earlier this month after a court declared that he was not guilty of the charges preferred against him. Back at home in Kebbi State, General Bamaiyi has undergone a Pauline conversion. He told the crowd at a ceremony to welcome him home that Chief Obasanjo had nothing to do with his trial. He said it was a Northern clique that had it in for him. Freed from the darkness of prison, General Bamaiyi has seen the light.

BUT his Emir, Alhaji Sani Sami, a retired general, was not convinced that Chief Obasanjo was not behind General Bamaiyi’s prosecution. The Emir of Zuru withdrew a top title he had conferred on Chief Obasanjo and conferred it on General Bamaiyi.

WE hear that Chief Obasanjo has begun a hunger strike to try to get the title back. Ha-ha.