The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) has defended the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts, insisting the process remains a valid constitutional and legislative tool for fiscal alignment and budgetary oversight.
This is according to a statement issued on Tuesday by the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu, in response to criticisms surrounding the budgeting process.
The office said the actions followed due legislative procedure, having been passed by the National Assembly and assented to by the President, and were undertaken to address prevailing macroeconomic and implementation realities.
What they are saying
The BOF dismissed claims that the repeal and re-enactment of the two Appropriation Acts were unconstitutional, illegal, or fiscally improper, describing such views as a misunderstanding of Nigeria’s constitutional framework and legislative practice.
The office said Sections 80–84 of the Constitution outline how the President proposes budgets and the Assembly approves spending.
“The Constitution does not prohibit the National Assembly from repealing and re-enacting an Appropriation Act where fiscal circumstances, implementation realities, or reconciliation of fiscal instruments make such legislative action necessary in the public interest,” the statement said.
The office said the Constitution allows budget extensions to complete obligations and settle claims.
“Where the National Assembly, in exercise of its legislative powers, extends the operational window of an Appropriation Act, such extension is an expression of legislative authority, not an illegality,” the office said.
The BOF said claims of expenditure without appropriation often confuse contractual obligations, statutory transfers, debt servicing, cash releases, and multi-year project commitments.
The office emphasized that spending must have lawful appropriation and proper legislative oversight through instruments like supplementary budgets, virement, or repeal and re-enactment.
It further argued that the repeal and re-enactment process strengthens, rather than weakens, constitutional control over public funds by consolidating and regularising fiscal authority through an Act of the National Assembly.
Why this matters
The defence by the Budget Office comes amid heightened scrutiny of Nigeria’s fiscal management, especially as the government grapples with macroeconomic volatility, revenue constraints, and rising expenditure pressures.
How appropriation laws are adjusted, extended, or re-enacted has implications for fiscal discipline, legislative oversight, and public confidence in the budgeting process.
By insisting that all adjustments must occur through formal legislative channels, the BOF is seeking to reinforce the primacy of the National Assembly in authorising public spending and to counter perceptions of arbitrary or informal fiscal practices.
What you should know
Nigeria’s Constitution gives the National Assembly exclusive authority to approve, amend, and repeal appropriation laws.
Repeal and re-enactment of budgets have been used in the past to address implementation gaps, revenue shortfalls, or timing mismatches between fiscal instruments.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the government to publish fiscal information regularly, but such disclosures must align with officially authenticated documents.
In December 2025, President Bola Tinubu asked the National Assembly to repeal and re-enact the 2024 and 2025 budgets and extend the 2025 budget to 31 March 2026.
The House of Representatives said the repeal and re-enactment aim to boost transparency, accountability, and ease budget implementation.
The response of BOF does not explicitly address the concerns raised by the CSOs.
Their concerns center on transparency and the violation of the fiscal procedural process by the arms of government. These are not convincingly addressed by BOF, as its explanation does not state a clear-cut constitutional provision that supports the repeal and enactment of Appropriation Acts after the budget cycle.
Are government actions open and clear enough?
Is the government following established rules for budget handling?