Breaking News
Translate

Ondo Assembly rejects N27bn extra budget


By Dayo Johnson

AKURE—LAWMAKERS in Ondo State yesterday rejected the N27billion supplementary appropriation bill forwarded to them by the state governor, Dr Olusegun Mimiko, citing irreconcilable figures in the bill.

Dr Mimiko last month presented the bill to the Assembly for ratification after making use of the budget inherited from the former Governor, Dr Olusegun Agagu who was ousted following the Court of Appeal judgment.

The rejection of the proposal by the members was predicated on the recommendation of the Committee on Finance and Appropriation headed by Mr. Samuel Adesina.

According to the committee’s report, it recommended the return of the bill to the executive because of the inaccurate figures noticed in the supplementary budget

Also, the members of the State House of Assembly summoned the Finance, Budget and Planning Commissioner “to appear before the Assembly in order to give analysis of the debt profile left behind by the immediate past administration of Dr. Olusegun Agagu.

They equally asked the governor to remove all the civil servants posted to the Ministry of Budget and Planning for dereliction of duty and incompetence in the handling of the finances of the government.

After rejecting the bill, the Lawmakers directed that it should be returned to the executive arm for a rework.
The Speaker of the Assembly, Alhaji Taofik Abdusalam directed that the new staff to be posted to the office of Budget and Planning should be schooled in the act of budget preparation.

The chunk of the amount which is over N17b is being appropriated from the consolidated fund of the state for recurrent expenditure.

According to the bill, the recurrent expenditure is an addition to the sum which was provided for in the earlier appropriation law.

The governor in the bill said the sum of N19b is to be appropriated from the consolidated fund for capital budget revenue.

The Committee in its report which was ratified by the members said “there was no need for the supplementary bill in the first instance because there was no surplus fund outside the budget approved for the state in the fiscal year.


Disclaimer

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.