JOHN ONYEUKWU
John Onyeukwu , is a lawyer and public policy analyst with interdisciplinary expertise in law, governance, and institutional reform. He holds an LL.B (Hons) from Obafemi Awolowo University, an LL.M from the University of Lagos, and dual master’s degrees in Public Policy from the University of York and Central European University. He also earned a Mini-MBA. John has managed development projects on governance, public finance, civic engagement, and service delivery. He can be reached on john@apexlegal.com.ng
I am a firm advocate that the law, in its majesty, must be more than the will of the powerful clothed in procedure. It must be an instrument of justice, restraint, and truth. The recent revelations by BudgIT, uncovering 11,122 projects worth ₦6.93 trillion inserted by the National Assembly into the 2025 budget, represent not merely an institutional impropriety but a betrayal of the republic’s constitutional soul. This is not an isolated scandal, it reflects a longstanding pattern of legislative overreach, executive complicity, and elite capture of Nigeria’s fiscal future.
The constitutional framework: Separation, not usurpation
The 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests the power of appropriation in the National Assembly under Section 80(1), but that power is circumscribed. Section 80(2) explicitly provides:
“No moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation except…where the issue of those moneys has been authorized by an Appropriation Act…”
But this power is not absolute. It must be exercised in line with Section 81(1), which mandates the President to lay estimates before the National Assembly, not the other way around. The legislature is to deliberate, not originate, projects. The National Assembly’s growing habit of inserting thousands of micro-projects, often pet projects without clear public utility, violates the spirit of this provision and constitutes a backdoor form of executive usurpation.
Indeed, Section 4(2) restricts the National Assembly to lawmaking, not executive functions such as initiating or implementing projects. Budget padding blurs this line and creates a hybrid of legislative-executive behaviour that undermines democratic checks and balances.
Where, for example, is the legal justification for inserting ₦400 million in scholarships under the National Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation, a body whose mandate has nothing to do with education?
Ruination of the social contract
Political philosophy from Hobbes to Locke underscores that power flows from the people, in exchange for security, justice, and welfare. When representatives abuse budgetary processes for personal enrichment, they dismantle the foundational social contract. Jean-Jacques Rousseau warned that democracy degenerates when factionalism displaces the general will. Today, we face a scenario where the National Assembly serves itself, not the republic. Legislators legislate for personal gain, disbursing public funds through opaque insertions cloaked as “constituency projects.” This is not federalism, it is fiscal feudalism.
In the words of Justice Louis Brandeis:
“We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
And in Nigeria’s case, it is clear which option we have chosen.
Economic sabotage as representation
From an economic standpoint, the implications are staggering. The ₦6.93 trillion worth of insertions by the National Assembly accounts for approximately 12.6 percent of the entire ₦54.99 trillion 2025 national budget. This is not a marginal adjustment, it represents more than one-eighth of the entire federal spending plan for the year. While the insertions do not exceed the combined capital allocations to major development ministries such as Education (₦3.52 trillion), Works and Housing (₦4.06 trillion), and Health (₦1.61 trillion), they still constitute a disproportionate fiscal burden.
BudgIT’s report notes that 4,000+ projects were added to the Ministry of Agriculture alone, inflating its capital budget from ₦242.5 billion to ₦1.95 trillion. These distortions violate the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA), 2007, which under Section 18(1) requires that budgets be “realistic and consistent with government’s economic objectives.”
Furthermore, Section 19 of the FRA mandates that capital projects be prioritised based on “the extent to which they contribute to the social and economic development of the country.” A review of these padded items shows they often involve boreholes, streetlights, untraceable ICT schemes, and duplicated interventions, projects with questionable impact and high implementation opacity.
Legal and institutional impotence
Nigeria has the legal framework to fight this abuse. The ICPC Act, EFCC Act, Public Procurement Act, and the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act all provide tools for enforcement. But the failure is institutional.
Section 15(5) of the Constitution declares:
“The State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.”
However, the same lawmakers tasked with oversight have become the architects of abuse. Even worse, the Executive appears increasingly complicit. Despite acknowledging budget manipulation, successive Presidents continue to sign padded budgets into law, thereby violating Section 5(1)(a) of the Constitution, which places executive power on the President to “uphold and defend” the Constitution.
MDAs are also not innocent. Some have inflated their estimates or fabricated procurement figures to accommodate legislative insertions. This breeds a parallel economy within the state — unaccountable, politicised, and insulated from scrutiny.
Crisis of legitimacy
Hannah Arendt observed that the ultimate danger of systemic corruption is not poverty, but the erosion of trust and truth. Public faith in Nigeria’s budgetary system is at a historic low. The National Assembly is seen not as a forum for national deliberation, but a cartel for legalised extraction.
The danger here is existential: If Nigerians believe the democratic process only serves the few, then the democratic project itself loses legitimacy.
What must be done
- Judicial Review: Civil society and public interest litigants must test the legality of legislative insertions before our constitutional courts.
- Independent Budget Office: A non-partisan budget and planning office, akin to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, should review all legislative additions for compliance with macroeconomic policy and fiscal integrity.
- Constitutional Restraints: Enact rules requiring pre-budget consultations and enforceable ceilings to limit arbitrary insertions, with legal consequences for breaches.
- Transparency Portal: All legislative insertions must be disclosed publicly, with costings, executing agency, timelines, and implementation updates available in real time.
- Civic Sanctions: Constituents must demand accountability. Every citizen should know what projects are budgeted in their name and hold their representatives accountable through open data and media pressure.
This is not budgeting, it is a distortion of public finance for political ends. The 2025 Budget, as padded, is not merely a legal anomaly; it is a moral and institutional crisis. But as all mirrors do, it reflects what we may not want to see. In this reflection lies a choice: reckoning or ruin. If democracy is to survive, public finance must return to the service of the people, not the privileges of the powerful.
We must break this cycle of legislative impunity and executive acquiescence. The time to act is now, before appropriation becomes the appropriation of democracy itself.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
