The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) has dismissed claims that the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts amount to a constitutional breach, insisting that the process is firmly grounded in Nigeria’s Constitution and established legislative practice.
In a detailed statement signed by the Director-General of the Budget Office, Mr Tanimu Yakubu, the agency said recent public commentary questioning the legality of the exercise was based on “key misconceptions” about constitutional provisions and fiscal governance.
Yakubu noted that while public scrutiny of government finances is legitimate, budget discussions must be anchored in the Constitution, relevant fiscal laws, and recognised legislative procedures.
According to the BOF, Sections 80 to 84 of the 1999 Constitution clearly outline the process for public expenditure, beginning with the President’s presentation of estimates to the National Assembly, followed by legislative approval through an Appropriation Act, and implementation by the Executive within the limits of the law.
“The Constitution does not prohibit the National Assembly from repealing and re-enacting an Appropriation Act where fiscal circumstances or implementation realities make such action necessary in the public interest,” the statement said.
It stressed that once the National Assembly passes a repeal and re-enactment bill and the President assents to it, the resulting law is valid and enforceable, describing claims that such action is a “constitutional impossibility” as incorrect.
Addressing concerns about the lifespan of budgets, the BOF explained that although Appropriation Acts are usually framed around a fiscal year, the Constitution does not impose a rigid expiry rule that prevents legislative extensions. Such extensions, it said, are often required to complete obligations, settle certified claims, or align overlapping fiscal instruments.
On allegations of “expenditure without appropriation,” the Budget Office said critics were conflating different aspects of public finance, including contractual commitments, cash releases, statutory transfers, and debt servicing that may span multiple fiscal periods.
The BOF maintained that the key legal test is whether spending is supported by lawful appropriation or other constitutional or statutory authority, and whether appropriate legislative oversight mechanisms—such as supplementary budgets or repeal and re-enactment—are followed.
It added that the repeal and re-enactment process actually strengthens constitutional control over public funds by consolidating and regularising fiscal authority through an Act of the National Assembly.
The agency also reaffirmed its commitment to transparency under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, noting that while Section 48(1) requires timely disclosure of fiscal information, due care must be taken to avoid circulating unauthenticated or conflicting budget documents during legislative harmonisation.
On public participation, the BOF said Nigeria’s representative democracy allows citizens’ interests to be conveyed through elected legislators, while also pledging continued support for budget literacy programmes and structured stakeholder engagement.
Yakubu disclosed that the Budget Office would intensify efforts to make authenticated budget documents and enrolled Acts available through official channels once finalised, while also strengthening citizen-friendly budget communication.
He concluded that Nigeria’s public finance system is anchored on the rule of law and institutional balance between the Executive and the Legislature, adding that lawful legislative action—not informal fiscal practice—remains the proper response to changing economic realities.
“BOF remains committed to fiscal discipline, transparency, and constructive engagement with all stakeholders in the national interest,” the statement said.
