The recent press statement by the Budget Office of the Federation seeks to clarify the legal basis for the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts. While the effort to engage public concerns is welcome, the explanation provided raises significant constitutional, fiscal governance, and transparency issues that require further clarification in the public interest.
First, the argument that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit the repeal and re-enactment of an Appropriation Act relies heavily on constitutional silence rather than constitutional purpose. Nigeria’s Constitution embeds the principle of annual budgeting as a core mechanism for legislative control over public finance. Appropriation is not merely an ordinary legislative act; it is a time-bound authorization designed to ensure discipline, predictability, and accountability in public expenditure. Repealing and re-enacting two consecutive budgets is an extraordinary fiscal action that demands a clear demonstration of necessity, not merely procedural regularity. That demonstration is absent from the statement.
Second, the conflation of legislative extension with repeal and re-enactment obscures an important legal distinction. Extensions preserve an existing legislative mandate for limited purposes, typically to allow for orderly completion of ongoing obligations. Repeal, by contrast, extinguishes prior authority and replaces it with a new one. Treating these as equivalent risks weakens the doctrine of annuality and blurs the boundary between lawful adjustment and retroactive fiscal regularisation.
Third, the response to allegations of expenditure without appropriation does not address the core constitutional test. The critical question is not whether fiscal transactions are complex or span fiscal periods, but whether, at the time commitments were entered into and payments effected, there was valid legislative authority as required under Section 80 of the Constitution. Post hoc legislative action, even when procedurally valid, cannot substitute for prior authorization without raising serious concerns about the erosion of legislative control over public funds.
Fourth, the justification offered for delayed public access to budget documents is particularly unconvincing. Transparency under the Fiscal Responsibility Act is not contingent on administrative convenience or internal harmonisation processes. Once an Appropriation Act has received presidential assent, it becomes law and should be accessible to citizens. Withholding authenticated budget documents undermines public trust, weakens oversight, and contradicts the spirit and letter of fiscal transparency obligations.
Finally, while Nigeria operates a representative democracy, representation does not negate the requirement for openness in fiscal governance. Modern public finance management recognises timely disclosure, clarity, and citizen access to budget information as essential complements to legislative representation. Invoking representative democracy alone cannot justify opacity in matters of public expenditure.
In conclusion, the issue at stake is not whether the National Assembly and the Executive possess legislative competence, but whether that competence has been exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional intent, fiscal discipline, and democratic accountability. Procedural legality, while important, is not a substitute for transparency, justification, and respect for the foundational principles that govern public finance.
The public is entitled not only to assurance that actions taken are “not prohibited,” but also to a clear explanation of why such extraordinary measures were necessary, how they align with constitutional norms, and what safeguards exist to prevent recurrence. Anything less risks normalising exceptional fiscal practices and weakening confidence in Nigeria’s public finance system. God is with us!
