By Oseloka H. Obaze

AN out-and-out constancy in Nigeria’s politics and governance is elite shifts and policy changes; which is well-documented in Joe Garba’s 1995 book, Fractured History. Another utter constancy is Nigeria’s budgetary process; the ambiguities, reoccurring sub-heads, un­implemented projects, padding, underperformance of budgets and lost opportunities. Hardly discussed, is the linkage between Nigeria’s underdevelopment and its failure to use the budget as a national development tool. Public budgeting, which ought to be a service-delivery and good governance tool is no longer a means of pro­moting public interest. The global budgetary ground norm is that government does not spend what is not ap­propriated. This is hardly so in Nigeria, as the capacity to undertake sound economic and fiscal planning, ex­penditure management, accountability and evaluation of public sector activities, remains elusive.

There’s one explanation for this dysfunction. Nigeri­an budgets have never been framed to be results-based. Budgets have over time, been structured and based on certain common assumptions with recurrent and capi­tal programmes framed as envelopes, and adopted in lieu of programmes that should guide development, economic growth and wealth creation. Such practices along with budgetary indiscipline, opacity, and lack of accountability are responsible for past misguided inter­vention and fiscal abuses. They have impacted nega­tively on Nigeria’s development and called into question the rationale of governmental budgeting.

Hitherto, all kinds of ploys were used to circumvent budgetary controls. Though 2016 budget making of­fered an opportunity to redress past errors, the process had a false start. This time it was “padding”; a termi­nology President Muhammadu Buhari claimed to be unaware of. His words: “There is something called “padding”. I’ve been in government since 1975. …I never heard the word “padding” until this year.” Besides padding, other challenges persist. While past budgets were presumably needs-driven, project-specific and based on reform assumptions, our budgets not being re­sults-based, explains why MDAs pad their budgets, and lobby the legislature to pass their sections of the budgets, as presented. Such practices offer the legislature the axi­omatic “pound of flesh” and “pork barrel”, from which to extract constituency project funding. Can Buhari change these practices?

A key challenge arising from the 2016 budget pre­sented to the National Assembly on December 22, 2015, and signed into law on May 6, 2016, is its inextri­cable link to President Buhari’s campaign and reform promises. Delivery and reform goals will definitely clash. Moreover, past efforts at budgetary reform failed due to lack of political will, ownership and bureaucratic resistance. Also with less than six months to implement the 2016 budget, there exist inherent risks of trying to do much in less time. As always, haste will make waste. Contextually, the suggestion that the 2016 budget should be operated until May 2017 is absurd. Such an overlap will only prolong the simmering discord, create turf fights and grounds for fiscal abuses.

Related News

The 2016 budget, which outsizes the 2015 N5 tril­lion budget by N1.6 trillion, is remarkable for its deficit of N2.23 trillion – the highest ever in Nigeria’s history. After the alleged “padding” and debulking, a slightly leaner budget was passed. The variations include a minor reduction from N6.8 to N6.6 trillion. The opera­tional parameters: an oil price benchmark of USD38 per barrel at 2.2 million barrels per day and determining ex­change rate of N197 to US$1 were retained. The 2016 budget is essentially Buhari’s first budget as president, which in content and size, sets presidential priorities, and will shape and define his governance trajectory, change agenda goals, fundamental political reform, historical and personal mandate, and also distinguish his admin­istration from preceding governments. Entrenching, consolidation and fulfillment of Buhari’s campaign promises will still hinge largely on the 2016 budget and its outcomes. Nonetheless, the budget deficit –some 2.14 per cent of GDP — will require Buhari to expend some of his political capital to ensure that the budget delivers. Yet, Buhari cannot expect to reform and down­size government’s expenses, end fuel subsidy and enforce spending cuts without hitting severely on the purchasing power and confidence of Nigerian consumers, which is at an all-time low. These realities prompt poignant questions.

One intractable challenge hardly ever discussed, is how best to tackle the subterranean but severe drain on Nige­ria’s budgeted resources, by way of Nigeria’s informal sup­port of the economies of neighbouring states. Besides, on­going labour protestations and face-off with government, for which one side must blink; has government properly benchmarked the budget to preempt abuse, guarantee de­livery of services and projects and stop MDAs that engage in budget busting through unforeseen expenses? Can the budget sustain imminent demands for palliatives and wages and kickstart Nigeria’s economy?

President Buhari’s biggest challenge is how to fund the 2016 budget fully and expeditiously, considering the deficit. Low oil prices remain adversarial and the snail-paced recovery of looted funds, an impediment. That leaves borrowing and taxes. Oil subsidy removal will re­sult in savings that will count as revenue. Yet the impact won’t amount to much until the foreign exchange policies are tweaked and government reviews “its policy of main­taining an artificially fixed exchange rate, in the face of depressed income from crude oil.” As a political and gov­ernance tool, past budgets have been near undemocratic, by not guaranteeing trickle down dividends. Same might be true of this budget. So any desired change coming to our budget processes, will require radical altering of ortho­doxies in budget making. A change that does not reform the national budget, and a “budget of change” that does not deliver the goods and services, will make the promise and clamour for change ironic.

Attempts to revamp the Nigerian economy using the 2016 budget are fraught with challenges and impondera­bles. The shock therapy approach is double-edged, since policies meant for the common good must be compassion­ate as they are rational.

n Obaze is the MD/CEO of Selonnes Con­sult Ltd.