NASS: Any hope in a truncated budget?
By Luke Onyekakeyah
THE unhealthy rivalry that prevented President Yar’Adua from presenting the 2010 budget at the National Assembly (NASS) is an ill wind that blows no one any good. Since 1999, when the current democratic dispensation started, Nigerians have not gained anything from the annual ritual called budget made by governments at all levels. What we have witnessed is colossal budget failures apparently caused by infighting and acrimony from the preparation to presentation and implementation.
Consequently, the budgets end up not achieving anything. That explains why infrastructure services across the country remain in deplorable condition. The question is if the previous budgets that were allowed to see the light of the day recorded no success, what would be the fate of a budget that the lawmakers have frustrated from the outset? How on earth would the budget effectively serve the purpose for which it was meant?
Special Adviser on National Assembly Affairs, Senator Mohammed Aba Aji reportedly delivered copies of the budget to the NASS on behalf of President Yar’Adua. This is the second time under this administration that the two chambers of NASS were on warpath over supremacy. The first was in connection with the review of the 1999 Constitution, in which the two fought over the nomenclature of the chairman of the review committee. That contention frustrated the joint sitting of the two chambers as each went it alone. What started as an affront has now assumed a frightening dimension. No one knows what would happen next. If the budget couldn’t be presented, would it ever be approved? What about the implementation, which is the most important aspect?
It is worrisome that a legislature that is predominantly PDP should always engage in a face off that could be resolved internally. This is not in the national interest. What would happen if there were multiple dominant parties? Won’t the business of law making grind to a halt? It is strange that lawmakers belonging largely to the same party now constitute a stumbling block and frustrating a president that belongs to their fold. I can’t imagine the democrats in the US Congress always moving against President Barack Obama in any matter of national importance.
Certainly, what is happening here underscores the futility of expecting much from the legislators. Besides, selfishness and lack of concern for the ordinary citizen is at the bottom of it all. Otherwise, the budget is meant to improve the lot of the common man? Do these lawmakers care whether or not the budget is presented or not? Do they care whether or not it is implemented?
I must point out that the rivalry over in which chamber the budget should be presented is novel in our post-independence experience. It simply underscores the degenerate political culture that has taken root in the land. It is a dangerous trend that should be stopped forthwith. I have not heard of any country where the head of state, in peacetime, sets out to present a budget but was frustrated by the lawmakers. It is unheard of and portends danger for the polity. By their action, the lawmakers have missed the opportunity to have the president read his appropriation bill with the fanfare that goes with it.
It is important to realise that countries have norms and traditions that keep the system going. Not every norm and tradition may be written in the Constitution. There are unwritten laws in every society. Though the 1999 Constitution states in Section 81 (1) that “The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year”, it has been the tradition in this country for the president to present the budget to a joint session of NASS in the lower chamber of the National Assembly, presumably because it has wider space to accommodate the lawmakers. The tradition has been there in good fate without strings attached.
I don’t think that those who started the practice had any sinister motive other than the interest of the country. It saves time, resources and energy for the president to have the budget presented in one joint session than to read the same document separately to the two chambers. And after the joint presentation, each chamber constitutionally takes the document back to its fold for separate debate.
In other climes, budget presentation marks an important event. In Kenya, for example, many offices close for work on budget day (which is fixed) to be at the parliament to listen to the finance minister who usually presents the budget. That is the tradition in Kenya and no one has kicked against it. But in our own case, a tradition that meant no harm to any body is being used to create bad blood out of selfish interest.
If this tradition has been upheld for decades, and as a matter of fact, since 1999 when the present democratic dispensation began, why remembering only this year what the Constitution says? Since this is the third budget of the Yar’Adua administration, where were those supremacists when the two previous budgets were read in the same fashion at the lower chamber? Were they sleeping or what? These questions are warranted if there was no hidden agenda by the lawmakers.
Whatever is the cause of the unpatriotic act by the two chambers of the National Assembly is not in the national interest. It is also not in the interest of the Yar’Adua administration or the ruling PDP. For, I don’t think that there has been such a situation in this country before. Denying the president the opportunity to present his budget, which is his Constitutional right, amounts to a slap on the president, the Constitution and the people of Nigeria.
If the contention was caused by overt egocentric disposition of the Senate President, David Mark and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole, then the two have a duty to explain in whose interest they were fighting for. They should explain why their personal ego should stand over and above the interest of the country. But if unseen forces contrived the contention, as some are wont to speculate, to save President Yar’Adua in his unhealthy condition the pain of reading the long budget, then there is no wisdom in doing that either.
For the Constitution mandates the president to present the budget at any time in each financial year. What it means is that the president has a period of twelve months to present the budget. It is as flexible as that. President Yar’Adua could have chosen another time when he is better disposed to do so. All that is needed is understanding and rapport in government circles to reach a compromise. But the whole thing has been handled in the most embarrassing and undignified manner. At the same time, the matter is not yet over until the budget is passed and signed into law.
It is most regrettable that the history of budgets under this democratic dispensation is a history of rancour, acrimony and personality clash. These merely herald the expected failure of the budget at the end of the day. If the energy put in fighting over the budget presentation and approval was put in its implementation, Nigeria would have been better off. But this, sadly, is hardly the case. There is intense fighting over what figures should be approved for sub-heads that end up with nothing to show.
The budget, if properly articulated on the basis of specific national needs, is a critical instrument for national development. National development can only be accomplished on effective budgets. Without such instrument, no development could be possible. To that extent, the importance of budget to national development cannot be overemphasised. Thus, anything that frustrates the preparation, presentation and implementation of the national budget could as well be regarded as our collective enemy.
Each time the ordinary citizen looks at what is happening at the corridors of power at all levels of governance in this country, one has course to conclude without equivocation that there is no sincerity in the leadership. There is little or nothing to convince the ordinary Nigerian that someone at the leadership position, with responsibility over his or her welfare is thinking about that.
That is why the lawmakers could frustrate the budget without losing anything. As a matter of fact, they have everything to gain. It is the ordinary citizens that suffer. For instance, does it matter to the lawmakers if the roads are impassable? Do they care whether or not there is water or electricity? Who cares whether the schools have teaching facilities or whether the hospitals are functional? The lawmakers are special people. They have been numbered among the saints. Whatever it is that worries we mortals is not for them. Let the budget go to hell. What would the people do? Nothing.
December 1, 2009
Tags: budget, national assembly, Nigeria, PDP, Yar’Adua Posted in: Luke Onyekakeyah
Loading ...