The budget defence: Is regularisation a euphemism for fiscal impunity?

The controversy surrounding the legality of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts has deepened, evolving from a civil society outcry into a fundamental debate on the mechanics of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. 

The swift rejoinder from the Budget Office of the Federation (BOF), released on Wednesday, attempts to douse the tension by framing the repeal and re-enactment process as a necessary tool for fiscal consolidation and regularisation. However, rather than settling the dust, the Budget Office’s defence inadvertently highlights the very cracks in our fiscal architecture that critics have long warned about.

In its statement, the BOF, led by Director-General Tanimu Yakubu, posits a technical legal argument that the Constitution empowers the National Assembly to repeal and re-enact laws, and once such a bill receives Presidential assent, it becomes valid law. They argue that extending the lifespan of a budget is a legitimate legislative exercise to ensure the orderly completion of obligations. On the surface, this is legally sound. The National Assembly indeed possesses the power of the purse and the power to make laws.

However, the devil is in the detail specifically in the BOF's admission that this process serves to regularise fiscal authority. In administrative parlance, one does not regularise what was done perfectly, one regularises an anomaly. This choice of words suggests a tacit admission that expenditures may have occurred outside the strict confines of the original appropriation, necessitating a retroactive legislative cover-up. If the Executive can spend funds based on implementation realities and simply ask the Legislature to regularise it later through a repeal and re-enactment, we are establishing a dangerous precedent where the Appropriation Act becomes a mere post-mortem formality rather than a pre-expenditure authorization.

This turns the constitutional principle of appropriation before expenditure on its head. It suggests a system where the Executive acts first and the Legislature stamps later. This is not fiscal discipline  it is fiscal ratification.

Furthermore, the BOF’s explanation regarding the lack of public access to these crucial documents is underwhelming. Citing document integrity and the need to avoid conflicting drafts as reasons for the opacity surrounding the bill is a bureaucratic deflection in 2026. In an era of digital governance, the enrolled bill should be public property the moment it leaves the legislative chambers. The secrecy that shrouded the passage of these acts where even lawmakers allegedly voted without seeing the full detailsbcannot be explained away by administrative caution. It breeds suspicion that the regularisation was hiding figures that could not withstand public scrutiny.

The Budget Office is right to state that Nigeria’s public finance rests on the rule of law but the rule of law is not just about technical compliance with legislative procedures, it is about the spirit of accountability. If the National Assembly uses its powers to retroactively legalize executive excesses, it is technically acting within the law, but it is morally abdicating its duty as a check on executive power.

While we commend the BOF for engaging with the public and reaffirming its commitment to transparency, the explanation provided does not fully exonerate the process. It leaves us with a lingering question, Are we operating a budget system guided by strict planning and discipline, or one governed by implementation realities that can be fixed after the fact?

To put this matter to rest, we agree with the sentiment that this issue requires more than press statements. It requires judicial clarity. The Supreme Court needs to interpret the limits of the National Assembly’s power to regularise spending through retroactive repeal and re-enactment. Until then, the BOF’s defence, while articulate, reads less like a vindication of due process and more like a bureaucratic rationalisation of a broken fiscal culture. Nigeria deserves a budget process where the law leads, and the spending follows not the other way around.