President Goodluck Jonathan last week stoked the fire when he accused
the National Assembly of tearing budget bills to shreds. The National
Assembly has returned the fire asking Jonathan to sit up. UCHENNA AWOM,
in this diary, suggests that the war drum beat, after all,may be
sounding fast and aloud.
These are heated times in Nigeria’s socio-political environment. It
is a period that could alter the once chubby relationships and can also
bring out the best in institutions. That being the case, is the once
rosy romance between the National Assembly and the Presidency going
awry? Indications to this emerged last week during the democracy day
celebrations.
President Goodluck Jonathan first stoked the fire at the Democracy
Day symposium last week Monday, the President accused lawmakers of
“tearing” the budget bill and of acting against the manifesto of the
ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). By inference, he implied that the
National Assembly frustrates the implementation of the budgets.
Though Jonathan was said to have squared up with the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, over the bills that
have stayed for a long time in the President’s in-tray at that occasion,
but his vociferous approach to the issue underscores the emerging gulf
between both institutions. In that case, it was potent enough to ignite a
caustic response from the parliament no matter how uncoordinated. The
response did come and of course it has elicited several interpretations
ranging from some that suggests ‘no-love-lost’ between both arms.
First, Tambuwal pointedly said at the occasion that Jonathan was
shirking his constitutional responsibility by sitting on many bills
passed by the National Assembly.
His remark was seen as a forerunner to a planned coordinated response by the National Assembly.
So, it was not surprising when the Deputy President of the Senate,
Ike Ekweremadu, took on President Goodluck Jonathan last Wednesday over
his failure to assent to some bills passed by the National Assembly.
He also claimed that the President “distorted facts” when he said on
Monday that the lawmakers tore up the budget proposal sent to them;
thereby, making it difficult for the executive to implement it.
“A number of bills that would have changed a lot of things for this
country have not been signed”, Ekweremadu said using the opening of a
public hearing by the Senate Committee on Environment and Ecology on a
bill to set up an erosion control commission to hit back at the
Presidency.
“So, my advice to the executive is to dialogue with the legislature
in matters like these and find a common ground instead of shifting
blames”, he added.
Continuing, Ekweremadu warned, “We expressed our displeasure over
some of the bills which we have sent to the Presidency for assent since
last year that have not received presidential assent. And in response,
the president said that it is because we are creating agencies. We will
continue to create agencies if it is important, because that is why we
are here.
“So, we have to do our job. Most of those bills have nothing to do
with agencies. I remember we have the State of the Nation Address Bill,
it has nothing to do with any agency and it has not been signed. We have
the National Health Bill. It has nothing to do with an agency. It has
not been signed. We have the Air Force Institute of Technology Bill and
Tobacco Bills.
“If institutions are to be created, they will definitely be created.
So any person who thinks that the creation of institutions should stop
is wasting his time. It would not stop because the society itself is
dynamic”.
On the budget bill, Ekweremadu declared, “I also believe that the
issue which he (Jonathan) also raised regarding the Appropriation Bill
was also a distortion of facts. The president said that we tore the
Appropriation Bill into pieces which made it impossible for
implementation. Certainly, that is not so.
“I am aware that the 2012 Appropriation Bill was returned to the
executive substantially the same way they brought it. So, we are
challenging them to ensure that the 2012 Appropriation Act is fully
implemented.
“They have been complaining that they could not implement the budget because of the inputs of the National Assembly.
“So, this year, we said we are not making any input, we are going to
give you the bill the way you brought it as a challenge to ensure that
it is implemented. So, we expect them to implement it 100 per cent
because that is their own vision.
“Of course, he also made reference to a point where they wanted to go
to court to challenge the role of the National Assembly in altering
Appropriation Bills. Well, that will be a welcome development.
“So we want to suggest that the executive should please take that
step of going to the Supreme Court or any court they wish to look at the
constitutionality of our role in terms of appropriation for this
country. We will be happy to see the outcome, and of course, we will
obey whatever the court says.
“But we believe the National Assembly has the ultimate say when it
comes to the appropriation of funds because that is what the
constitution says. If the Supreme Court or any other court says
otherwise, we would succumb to it and do exactly what the court says.
“Some of these things I think are things we should be able to discuss
with the executive. There is need for closer collaboration between the
parliament and the executive because if we are close to each other, we
can always discuss, we can always dialogue. But if we are far in
between, of course, we will be shouting at each other because for you to
hear me if we are far between, I have to raise my voice. So, I don’t
think that is good for democracy”.
The spat is perhaps the first open show of tacit disagreement between
the Presidency and the National Assembly. Though there had been
instances where the Presidency and the House of Representatives disagree
openly, but such altercations have never exceeded the boundaries of
both chambers. In most of such cases it was the Senate that mediates.
But the situations have changed and there is unanimity of purpose,
defence and response in the National Assembly.
The implication is that we may again witness a situation of serial
overriding of a seeming presidential veto of any of the bills lying in
the President’s in-tray. Doing this, which was last witnessed in the
first session of the National Assembly when they overruled ex-President
Olusegun Obasanjo’s veto on the Niger Delta Development Commission
(NNDC) Bill, will reinvent the national parliament as peopled by serious
minded individuals who are ready at all times to check the excesses of
the executive.
For now, the beat goes on and the chicken is coming home to roost.
SOURCE
