- Fighter jets: FG should never incur such expense without approval of the National Assembly again
What propelled the President Muhammadu Buhari-led executive arm of the Federal Government to spend a whopping $496, 374,470, without the approval of the National Assembly, as clearly provided by the 1999 constitution (as amended)? Even more intriguing is that few weeks ago, various spokespersons for the president had vehemently denied any extra-constitutional measure when the news filtered out that the government had approved $1billion for arms purchase, without recourse to the legislature.
In his subsequent communication to the National Assembly, the president said: “In the expectation that the National Assembly will have no objection to the purchase of these highly specialised aircraft, which is critical to national security, I granted anticipatory approval for the release of $496,374,470.” The president claimed that the disbursement was to meet a target set by the United States of America government, claiming that the money has been paid into that country’s treasury for 12 super Tucano Aircraft.
In the letter to the Senate, the president further said: “I am therefore writing, seeking approval of the Senate for the sum of $496,374,470 (equivalent to N151,394, 421,035) to be included in the 2018 Appropriation Bill which the National Assembly is currently finalising. “This procedure is strange to the constitution, and expectedly, the National Assembly has been up in arms for the constitutional aberration. Indeed in the House of Representatives, some members went as far as asking that an impeachment process be commenced against the president, for the infraction.
Without doubt, the 1999 constitution is unequivocal about the spheres of influence and distribution of power between the legislature and the executive arm of government. In section 80(1), it provides: “all revenues or other moneys raised or received by the Federation (not being revenues or other moneys payable under this constitution or act of the National Assembly into other public fund of the federation established for a specific purpose) shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federation.”
While the constitutionality of the so-called Excess Crude Account, from which the money was withdrawn still awaits the determination of the Supreme Court, the constitution is clear as to the authorisation needed for any public expenditure. Section 80(3) provides: “No moneys shall be withdrawn from any public fund of the federation, other than the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federation, unless the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an act of the National Assembly.”
From the foregoing, it seems clear that the executive clearly contravened the provision of the constitution in expending the huge sum without the approval of the National Assembly. Of course, we are mindful of the provision of section 82 of the constitution which authorises: “the withdrawal of moneys from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federation for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the government of the federation for a period not exceeding six months or until the coming into operation of the Appropriation Act, whichever is the earlier.”
It will be stretching the above provision too far to include the controversial expenditure as one necessary to carry on the services of government. While we shall not pre-empt the sanctions open to the National Assembly for the infraction, we wish to caution the executive against such reckless disregard of the groundwork upon which the entire democratic enterprise rests. A government not hinged on the rule of law, tends to dictatorship, and dictatorial acts have no place in a constitutional democracy.
In an emergency, the executive must take the leadership of the National Assembly into confidence before any expenditure. We demand that such recklessness never happens again.
