Worried about past experiences where Appropriation Bills were rejected by the President after passage by the National Assembly, Senators and members of the House of Representatives have proposed measures that will strengthen existing constitutional provisions on overriding Presidential veto on bills.
The lawmakers have also proposed an amendment to the constitution to compel the President and governors to present annual Appropriation Bills to the National and State Houses of Assembly at least three months before the end of the year.
The National and State Houses of Assembly are duty bound by the new amendments being sought to the Constitution to pass the Appropriation Bills before the 31st of December every year.
These and several other amendments to the Constitution are contained in the recommendations of both the Senate and House of Representatives Adhoc Committees on Constitution Review, chaired by the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege and Deputy Speaker, Rep. Ahmed Idris Wase, respectively.
The lawmakers are expected to vote on the 67 and 68 different recommendations in the Senate and House of Representatives respectively, between Tuesday, March 1 and Wednesday March 2, 2022 and each of the recommendations are expected to be approved by two-thirds majority of elected members of parliament.
Bill number 14 which provides procedures for overriding Executive Veto in respect of Money Bills introduced new measures which will make it easier for lawmakers to override the President by altering the provisions of Section 59 (4A) and Section 100 (4A) as it relates to states.
Section 59(4A) of the Constitution reads: “Where the President, within thirty days after the presentation of the bill to him, fails to signify his assent or where he withholds assent, then the bill shall again be presented to the National Assembly sitting at a joint meeting, and if passed by two-thirds majority of members of both Houses at such joint meeting, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required.
The new amendment to section 59 (4) of the Constitution reads: “Where the President, at the expiration of thirty days after the presentation of a Bill to him, fails to signify his assent or where he withholds his assent, then – (a) the President of the Senate shall, within seven days, convene a joint sitting of the National Assembly to reconsider the Bill; and (b) if approved by two-thirds majority of members of both Houses at such joint sitting, the Bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required or his veto shall be deemed overridden by the National Assembly”.
Hitherto, the President has had course to reject the Appropriation Bill as passed by the National Assembly as a result of what they had often described as budget padding.
Bill number 44 which sets the timeline for the Presentation of Appropriation Bills amended the provisions of Section 81 (1) and 121 (in case of states) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which says 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.”
However, the amendment is seeking to strengthen the provision by including specific time limit for the President and governors to prepare and lay their budgets before the National and State Houses of Assembly.
The new subsection 1 will now read: “The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly, not later than ninety days before 31st of December of every year, estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next financial year.”
The law also introduced a new subsection 1(a) which makes it mandatory for the National and State Houses of Assembly to pass the annual budget before the end of end of the year, saying “the National Assembly shall pass the Appropriation Bill before the 31st of December of every year for the next financial year.”
In addition, the long drawn agitation to have a minister appointed from the FCT is captured by bill no 61 which seeks to alter the provisions of section 147 of the Constitution which deals with the appointment of ministers from each state of the Federation.
The FCT has never had a minister appointed from the territory who is an indigene, while the 36 states have always benefited from such appointments.
Section 147(3) states that, “Any appointment under subsection (2) of this section by the President shall be in conformity with the provisions of section 14(3) of this Constitution:- Provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one minister from each state, who shall be an indigene of such state.”
When approved and signed into law, the new provision will now read: “Provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one minister from each state and the Federal Capital Territory, who shall be an indigene of such state and in the case of the Federal Capital Territory, who shall be a resident and a registered voter in the Federal Capital Territory.”
This provision was rejected by the House of Representatives in the 8th Assembly as it failed to muster the required two-thirds majority to sail through. The Nation
