 |
| Femi Falana (SAN). |
LAST week, Honourable Yakubu
Dogara, the Speaker of the House of Representatives arrogantly maintained that
he would not subject himself to the investigation being conducted by both the
Nigeria Police Force and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
As far as he is concerned, he enjoys immunity under the provisions of the
Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges Act. The embattled Speaker also
claimed that the padding of the 2016 is not a criminal offence. Honourable
Dogara’s confidence is likely to have been anchored on the statement credited
to the Presidency that the budget was not padded in any material particular...
Before then the All Progressives
Congress (APC) had decided to follow the discredited path of the Peoples
Democratic Party by treating the serious allegation of monumental corruption as
a “family affair” of the ruling party. But unlike the PDP the party failed to
act timeously. In other words, a cover up is no longer possible at this stage
as the cat has been let out of the bag. For now, Honourable Dogara has no
choice but to defend the criminal allegations. Contrary to his misleading
contention, the Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges Act has not conferred
immunity on him with respect to allegations of criminal offences. Since the
immunity conferred by the Act is limited to contributions to debates by members
of the national assembly the Speaker cannot ward off the invitation of the
Police and the EFCC to react to the criminal allegations leveled against him by
Honourable Abdulmumin Jibril.
The Speaker ensured that
Honourable Jibril was removed as the Chairman of the Appropriation Committee of
the House when it was confirmed by the House that he had allocated projects
worth N4 billion to his constituency. The House kicked against Jibril on the
ground that the remaining 359 members have been left to share the remaining N36
billion out of N40 billion. While not denying the allegation Honourable Jibril
disclosed that the Speaker and some principal officers had unilaterally
inserted 2,000 items, otherwise called constituency budgets in the budget. He
has also accused the Speaker of corrupt enrichment through the acquisition of
farms and other properties. Although the Speaker has failed to deny the serious
allegations he has threatened to sue Honourable Jibril for defaming him.
It would be recalled that the
initial budget was withdrawn by President Buhari when the national assembly
members accused some top civil servants of padding the 2016 budget. It was so
scandalous that the federal government undertook to sanction the public
officers who had altered the budget. At that juncture, the President promptly
removed the illegal insertions and re-present the corrected budget to both
chambers of the parliament. Thereafter, the budget was debated and passed and
sent to the President for his assent. It was signed into law by President
Buhari when he believed that it had been properly passed by the members of the
national assembly.
But it has now emerged that about
20 legislators in both chambers of the national assembly altered the budget by
inserting constituency projects worth N100 billion in the Appropriation Bill.
Both the senate and the House allocated to themselves N60 billion and N40
billion respectively. If it is established that the alterations were effected
after the passing of the budget by both houses the issue at hand goes beyond
padding. A clear case of conspiracy, fraud, forgery and corruption can be
established against the suspects.
Padding takes place when
legislators resolve to rewrite the budget by introducing new items outside the
estimates prepared and presented to them by the President. The controversy over
the padding of budget was laid to rest with the enactment of the Fiscal
Responsibility Act, 2007 which has imposed a duty on the finance minister to
source input from certain institutions including the national assembly during
the course of preparing the budget. That is when negotiations and horse trading
with the executive by the legislators is allowed. But neither the Constitution
nor the Fiscal Responsibility Act has empowered the National assembly members
to rewrite the national budget by including constituency projects whose costs
are arbitrarily fixed by the legislators.
Under section 81 of the
Constitution the President is given the exclusive power to cause the budget to
be prepared. Upon the preparation of the budget by the executive it shall be
laid or presented to the National Assembly by the President. In debating the
Appropriation Bill, the legislators may reduce the estimates if there are
errors or inflation of the cost of items or if certain items provided for has
been purchased before or for any other genuine reasons. But the national
assembly cannot increase the budget in any manner whatsoever. So, the
unilateral introduction of constituency projects is totally illegal and
unconstitutional.
By introducing new items the
national assembly has usurped the powers of the President to prepare the
budget. In other words, the legislators would have prepared the budget and laid
it before themselves and then passed it. That is a negation of the doctrine of
separation of powers. The Appropriation bill or amended Appropriation bill is
not like other bills. Whereas other bills shall emanate from either of the two
houses money bills shall emanate from the President. So a money bill is a
special bill which cannot be subjected to additions by the national assembly
because it has no power to prepare it.
Padding is an unconstitutional
infraction when the estimates are increased on the floor of the House. The
infraction becomes criminal when the Appropriation Bill is altered by a few
legislators after it had been passed by both houses of the national assembly.
In the instant case, Honourable Jibril is alleged to have altered the budget by
inserting projects worth N4 billion while a handful of other legislators led by
the Speaker are alleged to have included 2,000 items in the budget. Since the
President was then misled to sign it as the Appropriation Bill properly passed
by both houses the principal officers of the national assembly cannot turn
round to seek protection under the Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges
Act.
It is unfortunate that Honourable
Dogara has never heard of the word “padding” before now. It is not new in our
legislative history. While the 2005 Appropriation Bill was under consideration
in the senate some senators including the senate President padded the budget of
a ministry after collecting N55 million bribe from a minister. The scandal led
to the removal of the senate president who was later charged with his indicted
colleagues and the minister. The Supreme Court has recently ordered that the
suspects be tried for corruption having thrown out the preliminary objections
filed against the charges by them at the trial court.
If legislators conspire with
themselves to pad the budget to fund the purchase of exotic cars and payment of
unauthorised jumbo emoluments it is a criminal offence. The allegations of
Honourable Jibril have gone beyond the padding of the budget. The serious issue
which the Speaker and other principal officers have not addressed is that the
alterations of the budget took place outside the plenary session of the house.
This is the crux of the matter. A former senator was arrested recently and the
EFCC stumbled on a document which set out how N60 billion was shared among some
legislators. The EFCC should investigate the source of the fund. Where did the
fund come from? Jibril’s complaint should provide the country a golden
opportunity to get to the root of criminality in the national assembly.
Regardless of the interference of
the ruling party and the denial of the allegation of the padding of the 2016
budget by the Presidency the Police and the EFCC should proceed with the
investigation of the allegations of Honourable Jibril against the leadership of
the House and the counter allegations of his colleagues against him. Up till
now, the N115 billion budget of the national assembly in the 2016 budget has
been shrouded in secrecy. The ongoing investigation should reveal the details
of the budget.
Femi Falana, Senior Advocate of
Nigeria, SAN, is a lawyer and human rights activist who lives in Lagos.
