The interest and efforts put in by the media and public policy analysts in commenting on the 2013 Budget Proposal so far are quite commendable, and deserve continuing reinforcement for greater public awareness on the budgeting process. This very contribution, it is hoped, will both respond to some of the issues raised so far and also further reinforce the interest of all parties in the public finance discourse. And this will also be a good reference point for the formulators of both state and local government budgets still in the works.

The lesson from the eventual and relatively early presentation of the budget is that a people’s consistent demand for change will eventually pay off: the demand made by informed individuals and civil society organisations(CSOs) last year in particular for an early passage and committed implementation of budgets has not been in vain.

The perennial low percentage implementation of capital budgets has so far afflicted the 2012 budget. That the figure of 23.94% implementation of the 2012’s N1.34trn capital budget will be recorded by October is even a lesser evil when the canker of contract price-bloating is factored in – a phenomenon that even the President had about two weeks ago alleged makes the cost of projects in the country to be adjudged the highest in the world. The implication for public finance activists is that the Bureau of Public Procurements (BPP) must be compelled to review its pricing template in 2013 as to drastically reduce the cost of public procurements, still without slowing down the pace of contract approval. We should no longer be content with barely monitoring procurements, as this may amount to just monitoring (and validating) inefficiency and fraud – the proverbial case of garbage- in- garbage- out. Increased advocacy for the inauguration of the National Procurement Council may become more imperative in this regard.

On the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB): The prospects of the PIB positively impacting on the economy and the ordinary people are very appealing. But we must be doubly wary of emerging subterranean moves to arm-twist and torpedo the Bill, as exemplified in the declaration from some parts of the country of a sectional stance on the eventual parliamentary debate. Proper explanations and education must be given to avoid a repeat of the kind of schism that scuttled Enahoro’s 1953 patriotic motion for Nigeria’s Independence in 1956.

On the $75 Benchmark Price of Crude Oil: It is difficult to fault the precautionary stance of the Executive. That the Legislature muddled through with the addition of $2 to the 2012 bench-mark cannot justify their proposed raise of the 2013 bench-mark to $80/$85. They did the one of 2012 fiscal year solely to avoid a reduction in their N150bn haul in the recurrent budget.   The global uncertainties pointed out by the Executive cannot be whimsically waved aside, nor can the expected gains from reducing the deficit stand against the potential instability from oil-price dive in 2013. We will rather take calls for a supplementary budget from accretion to the Excess Crude Account/SWF than groan over the discomfort of adjusting to a diminished revenue inflow.

On the absence of link between the Growth Rate and Vision 20-20-20:  It is very instructive to point out the imperative to forge a link between the projected 6.5% growth rate of the Budget and NV20-20-20 average of 11% for the 2010-2013 phase.  This downward revision, though realistic, cannot be justifiably attributed to the recent flooding in the country. Recall that since after the funfair and exhilarations over the technical quality of the Plan (NV20), we have virtually gone to sleep as if we have no vision and set development targets: the NASS has gone hay wire with appropriation of wasteful expenditure, while Boko Haram has showed that even a security budget of N1trn may not be an answer to a poorly conceived  security policy; the flood may only have come to warn us of the dire need for us to organize our spiritual and physical affairs in a better manner. Let us henceforth compel the Planning Ministry/NPC to constantly link us to the Vision as we budget and implement. Right now we have a lot of grounds to cover, especially in the critical area of reducing recurrent expenditure to free more investment capital, if we want to rekindle hopes on achieving any portion of the Vision’s targets. We must insist that NASS reflect this reality in considering the 2013 budget before it.

On Fiscal Deficit and Debt Management: As was said about the MTEF figures, the deficit figure remains a projection; and deficits in general should be evaluated on the backdrop of a given country’s peculiarities: what brought about the deficit, how is it being financed, and what are the future streams of cost-benefits attached to the deficit, etc?  The ‘safe’ margins currently being pegged as international benchmarks are just necessary to check the fiscal imprudence of leaders of most developing economies.

The President still contrived to link our borrowing and debt management practices to the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibilities Act, 2007. Perhaps, it is possible to point out the dangers inherent in the literal compliance with the Act’s proviso that borrowing can be justified if, among other things, it is for capital budget. This makes it apparently logical to approve of the Finance Minister’s recent journey to China to collect a $600million (N96bn) loan for the Abuja Light Rail project being executed by a Chinese company. But wait a minute: Is N96bn not far smaller than the N130bn that can be saved from NASS’ bloated N150bn annual budget haul? Or, what is N96bn to the N191bn recovered out of Mrs Cecilia Ibru’s bank probe, or to the trillions of naira oil price/subsidy scam, pension scam, Abuja Airport and Kubwa Road Expansion contract scams, etc? The spirit of the FRA proviso is that these pervading acts of financial malfeasance must have been drastically reduced before determining what needs to be borrowed and for whatever purpose.

On Sectoral Allocations: Again, we have the problem of balancing in apportioning our resources efficiently as determined by our socio-economic circumstance and the alternative course of blindly aiming to meet some international benchmarks. All in all, the major culprit is self-aggrandisement of politicians and civil servants, which ultimately balloons the recurrent budget and decimates the impact of the capital budgets. We must find a solution to this well-identified problem. The NASS needs to yield to the popular demand for it to drastically prune its recurrent budget, in order for it to have the moral authority to prune the excesses in the other segments of the public sector’s budget. NASS cannot just be asked (by some analysts) to reduce its recurrent expenditure from N150bn to N100bn without supporting calculations of justifiable expenses. A simple calculation based even on the excessive remuneration packages which RMAFC approved for NASS members will reveal that NASS’ annual recurrent budget for personnel cost (including NASS staff), committee work, public hearing, oversight, etc, can be prudently met with a sum of N20bn (twenty billion naira); NASS can thus free at least N130bn from the N150bn it has been awarding its members. If NASS contests this fact let it obey a recent court order on it to disaggregate its budget and publish the remunerations of its members since 1999.

Currently, NASS’ budget cannot be vetted or queried by the President or Ministry of Finance/BOF, for obvious reasons. Not a few consider as high-handed and contemptuous the description (by NASS leadership) of the Appropriation Bill presented by the President as “mere estimates”. This de facto absolute power has naturally emboldened NASS to continuously balloon its budgets, with the result that other public sector and the organised private sector labour unions have successfully extracted unreasonable conditions of service and unsustainable remuneration packages from the treasury: the Customs, Immigration, SEC, FIRS, ASUU, SSANU, and PHCN, are easy references. Without equivocation, the jumbo pays /allowances of the legislators must be trimmed in the 2013 budget for us to begin the process of reasonably reducing the offensive bloat in personnel cost. Civil society organizations must constructively engage the legislators on this process to ensure desired results in the 2013 appropriations. Mere grumbling, insults and condemnation cannot help us.

 Still along this line, the expected White Paper on the Oronsaye Committee Report must not be influenced by undue consideration of possible negative impact on current job-holders. The rationalization exercise should be clinically executed. This critical exercise cannot be held down by legislative/legal hiccups. While we wait, it might as well be less wasteful to allow possible job losers to continue to receive their salaries from their homes than for them to remain in office and inflict more injury on public treasury.

On Job Creation: The continuing placement of our unemployment problem on the front burner is very commendable. What is required in this budget is a critical evaluation of the various job creation policies and programmes, to see which is relevant and/or more efficient at quickly impacting on the huge unemployment problem confronting us: let us consider the relative efficiency of YOUWIN’s targeted 80 to 100 thousand jobs in three years and the over 3.5 million jobs that can be readily realised yearly from agriculture and other QUICK-WIN proposals. We cannot afford further playing to the gallery with government-sponsored job creation programmes that have no history of success and sustainability in the country.

Power Sector: the relatively small allocation to the Sector is understandable, considering the divestiture resulting from progress in the Reform programme.  But we must sustain the vigilance to ensure continued progress, as the success of job creation and general socio-economic transformation aspiration hinges on it.

Agriculture: Despite the absolutely meager cash allocation, the commendable tax incentives will definitely impact positively on the dynamism being injected in the critical sector.

Corruption War: The realization that corruption is at the root of our failures in governance and budgetary process, and that the officially designated anti-graft agencies cannot win the war should make us decide on new ways of confronting the canker in 2013. Otherwise, we have no basis for expecting different results.

On Sports: our desire for outstanding ranking in international competitions should be based on objective consideration of our true needs vis-à-vis our level of economic development and priority needs of the masses. Japan and the US only recently started paying serious attention to football, after they had attained great economic and technological capabilities to sustain the huge investments in sports facilities. Nigeria currently imports even the jerseys and whistles used in the games. Our governments need to rationalize their level of spending on sports and religion, and not flow with the whims and clichés of a vocal few. What does it take to indigenise our sporting activities and export same to the international community, while not restricting private individuals and organisations from funding their participation in global events for now?

We believe that if these and other aspects of the budget are attended to and watched, we can make out a truly Budget of Fiscal Consolidation and Inclusive Growth. Now is the time to engage the National Assembly, and insist that the legislators show why they will receive more than N20bn for their recurrent budget in 2013; the pitfalls in 2012 approach can be avoided. The facts are so obvious we just need maturity, wisdom, good presentation, persuasiveness and mass following to get NASS members yield to the demand for prudence and social justice in the 2013 appropriation. We thus need greater public participation in the 2013 budgeting process.

 Anyanwu is an executive director at Citizens for Justice, Employment & Transparency (C-JET) in Port Harcourt.

Victor Anyanwu