Budget: Re-enactment process constitutional, FG replies CSOs

The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) has dismissed claims that the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts constitute a constitutional breach, insisting that the process is firmly grounded in the Constitution and established legislative practice.

The Director-General of BOF, Tanimu Yakubu, in a statement Wednesday said that recent public commentary questioning the legality of the exercise was based on “key misconceptions” regarding constitutional provisions and fiscal governance.

He was responding to a coalition of notable civil society organisations under the aegis of Nigerian Civil Society Economy Action, who berated the federal government of ‘fiscal rascality’.

The coalition comprises Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ), Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), PLSI, BudgIT and PRIMORG.

Yakubu noted that while public scrutiny of government finances is legitimate, budget discussions must be anchored in the Constitution, relevant fiscal laws and recognised legislative procedures.

According to him, Sections 80 to 84 of the 1999 Constitution clearly outline the process for public expenditure, beginning with the President’s presentation of estimates to the National Assembly, followed by legislative approval through an Appropriation Act, and implementation by the executive within the limits of the law.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the National Assembly from repealing and re-enacting an Appropriation Act where fiscal circumstances or implementation realities make such action necessary in the public interest,” the statement said.

It stressed that once the National Assembly passes a repeal and re-enactment bill and the President assents to it, the resulting law is valid and enforceable, describing claims that such action is a “constitutional impossibility” as incorrect.

Addressing concerns about the lifespan of budgets, the BOF DG explained that although Appropriation Acts were usually framed around a fiscal year, the Constitution does not impose a rigid expiry rule that prevents legislative extensions. Such extensions, it said, are often required to complete obligations, settle certified claims, or align overlapping fiscal instruments.

In response to allegations of “expenditure without appropriation,” the Budget Office stated that critics were conflating different aspects of public finance, including contractual commitments, cash releases, statutory transfers, and debt servicing, which may span multiple fiscal periods.

The agency also reaffirmed its commitment to transparency under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, noting that while Section 48(1) requires timely disclosure of fiscal information, due care must be taken to avoid circulating unauthenticated or conflicting budget documents during legislative harmonisation.

…We stand by our words -coalition

However, in a swift reaction to the BOF response, the coalition said they stand by their words and that their intervention was not driven by adversarial intent, but by a shared responsibility to uphold the Constitution, strengthen fiscal governance, and protect the public interest.

They also acknowledge and commended the timely response of the BOF to their statement on the matter, saying they recognise this engagement as a positive step towards constructive public dialogue on fiscal governance, constitutionalism, and budget transparency.

“Our intervention is guided by a shared commitment to strengthening Nigeria’s public finance system, deepening constitutional accountability, and expanding citizen participation in budgetary processes,” they said.

Below is more details of their response…

In that spirit, we respectfully offer the following clarifications and observations in response to the BOF’s statement, with a view to advancing mutual understanding and institutional improvement.

1. Constitutional Framework for Public Expenditure

We agree that Sections 80–84 of the Constitution establish a sequenced and rule-based framework for public expenditure management, centred on prior legislative authorisation. Our concern remains that this constitutional sequence must be strictly observed in both form and substance.

Where expenditures exceed the limits approved in an Appropriation Act before further legislative approval is obtained, such actions raise serious constitutional questions. While subsequent legislative measures may seek to regularise fiscal outcomes, they do not negate the importance of prior authorisation as a cornerstone of constitutional governance.

We believe this issue deserves further clarification through transparent inter-institutional engagement and, where necessary, judicial interpretation.

1. Repeal and Re-enactment of Appropriation Acts

We acknowledge that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit repeal and re-enactment of laws, including Appropriation Acts. However, we respectfully submit that the unique nature of budget laws—their defined fiscal lifespan, annual revenue-expenditure balancing, and macroeconomic implications—requires heightened caution.

The repeal and re-enactment of an Appropriation Act well beyond its original fiscal year, particularly where such action appears linked to expenditure already incurred, raises legitimate public interest concerns.

Our position is that prior legislative authority is absent, and legislative endorsement after expenditure must align with the spirit of fiscal discipline, predictability, and constitutional restraint. This is an area where clearer standards and precedents would benefit governance.

1. Budget Lifespan and Legislative Extensions

We recognise that the National Assembly has constitutional powers to legislate on fiscal matters, including the definition of the financial year. However, frequent or ad-hoc extensions of budget lifespans—especially through resolutions rather than formal amendment Acts—risk introducing uncertainty into fiscal management.

For public confidence and legal clarity, amendments to Appropriation Acts should, in our view, follow clear legislative processes, consistent with how laws are ordinarily amended. This approach would strengthen institutional credibility and ensure alignment with constitutional and statutory norms.

1. Expenditure Without Prior Appropriation

We note BOF’s explanation regarding the complexity of public finance administration. Nonetheless, the constitutional principle remains clear: public expenditure should be proposed, scrutinised, and approved before it is incurred, except where expressly permitted by law.

The request for post-expenditure legislative approval suggests that further dialogue is required on the boundaries between implementation realities and constitutional requirements. We believe this conversation is essential to reinforcing—not weakening—Nigeria’s fiscal accountability framework.

1. Transparency and Access to Budget Documents

We welcome BOF’s reaffirmation of its obligations under the Fiscal Responsibility Act and its commitment to public access to fiscal documents. Transparency is not merely a procedural requirement but a constitutional value that underpins public trust.

Given current technological capacities, timely publication of budget proposals, repeal and re-enactment bills, and enacted Appropriation Acts should be a routine administrative practice.

We encourage BOF to continue strengthening internal systems to ensure that authenticated documents are made publicly available without delay, in line with the Constitution and the Freedom of Information Act.

1. Popular Participation and Civic Engagement

We agree that Nigeria operates a representative democracy. At the same time, Section 14(2)(a) of the Constitution affirms that sovereignty belongs to the people. Representation is therefore complemented—not replaced—by meaningful citizen participation.

We encourage BOF, the National Assembly, and other fiscal institutions to deepen structured public engagement, including open budget consultations, access to data, and platforms for civic input. These measures enhance policy legitimacy and align with Nigeria’s commitments to open government and co-creation.

Our intervention is driven not by adversarial intent, but by a shared responsibility to uphold the Constitution, strengthen fiscal governance, and protect the public interest.

We respectfully call on the Budget Office of the Federation, the National Assembly, and the Executive to continue this dialogue with civil society and citizens, with a view to clarifying legal standards, improving transparency, and reinforcing constitutional compliance in Nigeria’s budgetary process.

Constructive engagement, openness, and fidelity to due process will best serve the Nigerian people and strengthen confidence in public institutions.