Politics
Much Ado About Rivers 2014 Budget
Tuesday, January 7,
2014 will no doubt go down in the annals of the history of legislation on Rivers State, nay Nigeria, especially against the background of events that preceded the passage of the state’s 2014 Appropriation Bill by the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Expectedly, the presentation and subsequent passage of the 2014 Appropriation Bill by the House had elicited mixed reactions from individuals, lawyers and lawmakers.
One of them is the Chief Whip of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Hon Ikwuiyi Ibani, who criticised the manner in which the budget was quickly passed into law.
“I couldn’t have attended any sitting outside the Chambers of the Rivers State House of Assembly. What my colleagues did was unconstitutional in the first instance because it is a known fact that the Rivers State House of Assembly sits at Moscow Road, we have our official office which is the Assembly complex, so any business of the House conducted outside the premises of the Assembly is null and void”, Hon Ibani said.
Also, the member representing Obio/Akpor constituency 1, Hon. Martin Amaewhule, said it was illegal for the Assembly to sit outside the complex. According to him, “The standing order of the Rivers State House of Assembly is very clear, you cannot, and it is not possible for a Governor to present a budget and have it passed on the same day.
“The standing order is very clear, go to order 50, it is very clear, you cannot, in fact, the debate on the presentation of the budget cannot take place on the same day”, Hon Amaewhule stated.
The state Chapter of the PDP, on its part, described the action to present the 2014 budget outside the Hallowed Chambers of the Assembly as “illegal, criminal and of no effect”.
Speaking to journalists in Port Harcourt shortly after Governor Amaechi presented the budget before the House, the state Chairman of the PDP, Chief Felix Obuah also described the presentation as “an illegality that will not stand”.
In an obvious response to the above, the State interim APC Chairman, Davies Ibiamu Ikanya, described the Felix Obuah-1ed PDP in the state as a “bunch of ignoramuses who expose their total ignorance of law making shamelessly”.
According to him, the stand of Rivers State PDP on the budget presentation only further “exposes their hatred for the development of Rivers State, knowing very well that without budget, the government can’t finance most of its projects or pay salaries.
“What PDP does not understand is that first, it is the Speaker that designates where the House sits as far as the Mace, which is the symbol of authority is present. The Speaker, Otelemaba Amachree, as the Head of Legislature in Rivers State designated the venue of sitting in line with his powers.
“In other words, based on the fact that the Rivers State House of Assembly is under siege, coupled with the fact that it is still under renovation, the House did the proper thing. Besides, the House has powers under the rules, and with necessary quorum and number, to designate any place as its chambers as in this case”, Ikanya explained.
Earlier, the Speaker of the State Assembly, Rt. Hon. Ote1emaba Dan-Amachree, had said the Assembly took the decision to carry out its legislative functions in a “makeshift chamber” in the Government House.
These claims and counter claims as to the legality of the venue of the plenary session, the presentation of the budget, and its passage as law raises a lot of questions which seem to have been inadvertently down p1ayed in the whole saga. Pitiably, it is done with such impunity that makes the interest of the common man seem unimportant. Ironically, they all claim to seek to protect the same interest.
The key questions that easily come to mind are: “ Does the Assembly have the right to pick another venue different from the Hallowed Chambers for its plenary?” “Is there any law that clearly states the number of days the budget must take to pass through the various stages before becoming a law?” “Did members of the Assembly form a quorum, including key officers, during the plenary?” “Was the Mace, which is the symbol of authority present during the session?”
Specifically, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria did not state that plenary must always hold in the Hallowed Chambers. Section 121(i) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which is to the effect that the Governor shall cause to be laid before the Assembly, “at any time before the commencement of any fiscal year”, the estimates of revenue and expenditure, clearly did not state venue for sitting. This is unlike Judges who must sit in the court.
In essence, if there is a lacuna in the constitution, should the Assembly be blamed for it when it acts, based on the exigencies of the moment, with the sole purpose of moving the State forward rather than letting it remain stagnant?
Naturally, every well-meaning individual should know at this point that the events leading to the passage of the 2014 budget should be an eye-opener to those that make our laws at all levels.
They should know by now that what is required of them is for them to make laws that can stand the test of time, for the sole benefit of the populace rather than a few privileged persons fortunate to be in power at any given point in time. Anything different will only create more lacunas that can create problems, and no one can tell who will be the recipient of whatever action that will emanate from it.
As the Governor explained while presenting the budget to the 23 lawmakers present, he proposed to spend N485.5bn this fiscal year, explaining that the budget was 0.98 per cent lower than the N490.32bn he presented in 2013.
He said the focus of the budget was the completion of ongoing projects in the health, education, roads, transport, power, water, agriculture and other critical sectors. According to him, capital to recurrent ratio is 76.24 for the 2014 as against 70.30 achieved as of September 2013.
The Governor also noted that “In the light of the 2014 budget, we will not accommodate new projects. This is in the light of current realities and out of a resolve to guarantee efficient service delivery.
“The economic realities arising from already dwindling resources since mid 2013 suggest a need for prudence and good sense this year. Government will continue to demonstrate good sense of management by making more money available to complete projects this year”.
If the whole hullabaloo over the passage of the 2014 budget is for the interest of the common man in the state, how would it be to his interest if the numerous road projects embarked upon by the present administration, for instance, are not completed and finally abandoned by subsequent government, knowing what usually happens to inherited projects? The same thing goes for all other uncompleted projects, which the 2014 budget seeks to complete.
It is noteworthy that for the first time in the history of the state a government has decided to complete projects before the expiration of its tenure. Considering the fact that this administration has less than eighteen months left, should it not be fair for everything to be done to ensure the completion of the projects? If for nothing else, for the sake of the populace we claim to protect?
The state chairman of the party, Dr Babandi Gumel, disclosed this in a statement signed and made available to journalists on Saturday.
According to the statement, the Jigawa PDP received news of Alhaji Lamido’s suspension with “profound shock and disappointment”.
The statement added that the suspension, which was reportedly based on allegations that Alhaji Lamido attended meetings capable of undermining party unity, amounts to an affront to justice, internal democracy and the reconciliation efforts recently championed by the PDP leadership.
The party stressed that the exercise of legal and constitutional rights within the party should not be interpreted as an act of disunity. It recalled that Alhaji Lamido approached the court after he was allegedly denied the opportunity to purchase a nomination form to contest the position of National Chairman of the PDP.
The statement further noted that the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, ruled in Alhaji Lamido’s favour by restraining the PDP from proceeding with its national convention until his right to contest was determined.
The Jigawa PDP argued that the suspension appeared to be a punitive action against Alhaji Lamido for seeking judicial redress over an issue on which the court had already found merit.
The party also faulted the decision of the BoT for contradicting recent public statements by its chairman, Senator Adolphus Wabara, who had emphasised reconciliation within the party, admitted past mistakes and appealed to aggrieved members to return fully to the PDP fold.
However, it maintained that suspending a founding member who sought justice through legal means runs contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing publicly advocated by the party leadership.
The chairman said the suspension was premature and prejudicial, as the matter remains before the courts. He also described Alhaji Lamido as one of the few founding fathers of the PDP who has remained loyal to the party without defecting, warning that punishing such loyalty sends a negative signal to other committed members.
The party further argued that the action undermines party unity at a time when the PDP requires cohesion to effectively challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It also insisted that there is no provision in the PDP constitution that allows for the suspension of a “life member”.
The party called on the BoT to immediately and unconditionally withdraw the suspension of Alhaji Lamido.
It also demanded that the BoT publicly affirm the right of all party members to aspire to leadership positions in line with the party’s constitution and the laws of the country, without fear of victimisation.
It further urged the BoT to retrace its steps, align its actions with its reconciliation agenda, and tender an apology to Alhaji Lamido.
The Jigawa PDP reaffirmed its commitment to a united, democratic and law-abiding Party.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Comrade Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, CISLAC warned that if proven, such actions would amount to a serious breach of constitutional order, legislative integrity, and public trust.
The organisation noted that Nigeria’s law-making process is clearly defined by the Constitution, stressing that any alteration of a bill after parliamentary passage undermines democratic governance and the principle of separation of powers.
CISLAC further emphasised that taxation has direct implications for citizens, businesses, sub-national governments, and the overall economy. It stated that uncertainty or a lack of transparency in tax legislation could erode investor confidence and raise concerns about accountability and the possible abuse of executive power.
The organisation described the situation as particularly troubling given the rare inclusive, and thorough public consultation that shaped the law’s final provisions prior to its passage.
“This process brought together taxpayers, civil society groups, professional organisations, the private sector, labour unions, local governments, and technical experts, ensuring that diverse viewpoints were considered and carefully balanced.
“Any unilateral changes to these agreed-upon provisions, made outside the established legislative process and without renewed public engagement, not only breach public trust but also violate the fundamental tax principle of representation, which holds that citizens must have a meaningful voice in shaping the laws that govern how they are taxed. Such actions undermine democratic accountability, weaken the legitimacy of the tax system, and risk eroding public confidence”, it noted.
CISLAC expressed particular concern that uncertainty surrounding the authenticity of the tax law, coming at a time when a new tax regime is expected to take effect, could exacerbate the economic hardship already faced by many Nigerians.
It observed that citizens are contending with rising living costs, inflationary pressures, declining purchasing power, and reduced access to basic services, warning that implementing a disputed tax framework under such conditions, risks deepening inequality, discouraging compliance, and fuelling public resentment.
The organisation stressed that tax reforms must be anchored in clarity, legality, fairness, and social sensitivity, cautioning that any tax system introduced without full transparency, adequate public communication, and legislative certainty undermines voluntary compliance and weakens the social contract between the state and its citizens.
As part of its recommendations, CISLAC called on the Presidency to urgently publish the exact version of the tax law assented to, alongside the authenticated copy passed by the National Assembly, to allow for public and institutional verification.
It also urged the leadership of the National Assembly to promptly exercise its oversight powers to determine whether the assented law reflects the will of the legislature, including a review of the enrolled bill process.
The organisation maintained that any discrepancy discovered should be treated as unconstitutional and addressed through lawful means, such as the re-transmission of the correct bill or judicial interpretation where necessary. It further called for an independent review of the process by relevant institutions, including the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and, where required, the judiciary, to establish the facts and assign responsibility.
CISLAC noted that the controversy highlights the urgent need to strengthen safeguards at the legislative and executive interface. It recommended measures such as digital tracking of bills, public access to enrolled legislation, and more transparent assent procedures.
CISLAC emphasised that the issue is not about partisan politics but about safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. It warned that allowing any arm of government to unilaterally alter laws passed by another sets a dangerous precedent and weakens constitutional democracy.
The organisation urged all parties involved to act with restraint, openness, and fidelity to the Constitution, noting that Nigerians deserve laws that reflect due process, the public interest, and the collective decisions of their elected representatives.
CISLAC added that it will continue to monitor developments and engage relevant stakeholders to promote accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in Nigeria’s governance processes.
