BY OKEY NDIRIBE & EMMAN OVUAKPORIE

…Tantamount to shutting down SEC’s business— Jonathan
ABUJA—House of Representatives, Wednesday, confirmed widespread speculations over its planned rejection of President Goodluck Jonathan’s proposal for the amendment of the 2013 budget by throwing out the fiscal document on the ground that it was incurably bad.

The House rejected the President’s budget amendment proposal after a report on it was presented at yesterday’s plenary by the Chairman of the House Committee on Rules and Business, Mr. Sam Tsokwa.

He presented it on behalf of the Joint Committees on Rules and Business, Judiciary and Justice, which was given the responsibility to examine and determine the legality of the President’s letter to the National Assembly last March.

Tsokwa had in the report informed the House that going by the content of the letter, the President was silent on what should be amended in the 2013 Appropriation Act, adding that he should have presented a Supplementary Appropriation Act.

Tsokwa said: “A community reading of Section 81, Subsections (1) (2) and (4) of the Constitution creates a very strong impression and feeling in the mind that the Constitution does not favour, admit of or even contemplate the amendment of an Appropriation Act save through a Supplementary Appropriation Act.

“The document, the Appropriation Act 2013 Amendment Bill, which Mr. President’s communication forwarded to the House, has apart from its long title, Appropriation Act 2013 Amendment Bill, has nothing in it to show that it is a document seeking to amend or repeal and re-enact the 2013 Appropriation Act.

“The purported Amendment Bill, a five-clause Bill, is completely and totally silent on what and which sections of the 2013 Appropriation Act it seeks to amend and/or repeal. It is also silent on the schedules or what aspects of the schedules to the 2013 Act it seeks to amend and/or repeal.”

‘It’s unconstitutional’
He further observed that the content of the letter clearly indicated that what the President needs to present to the House is a 2013 Supplementary Appropriation Act and not a 2013 Budget Amendment Act, which is unconstitutional.

Tsokwa also informed the House that since the President asked for approval of N4,987,382,196,690 instead of the N4,987,220,425,601.00 appropriated by the National Assembly, he ought to have sent a 2013 Supplementary Budget to the parliament.

He said: “Clearly, what the Amendment Bill 2013 seeks to appropriate is more than what was appropriated for the 2013 fiscal year in the 2013 Appropriation Act.

“That is to say, the executive would appear to be seeking additional funds. Obviously, this cannot be achieved through an Amendment Bill. The answer lies in a Supplementary Appropriation under Section 81(4) of the Constitution.

“At best, the Appropriation Act 2013 Amendment Bill of Mr. President, for want of a better description and or expression, is, in the words of Hon. Dogara, a ‘2013 Appropriation Bill No. 2’. It is alien, a stranger or, indeed, an interloper in our constitutional arrangement.”

When he finished his presentation, Tsokwa’s Joint Committee report was applauded by his colleagues.

Speaker of the House, Mr. Aminu Tambuwal, subsequently announced that the report didn’t need a debate and therefore ruled that it had been adopted by the House.

It would be recalled that there were unresolved differences between the National Assembly and the Presidency over the 2013 Appropriation Act, which resulted in the President’s delayed assent to the 2013 Appropriation Act.

‘The President’s letter’
President Goodluck Jonathan had, last March, sent a letter to the National Assembly proposing that certain clauses of the 2013 Appropriation Act be amended.

One of the clauses President Jonathan wanted amended was that which denied any allocation to the Securities Exchange Commission, SEC.

In the letter, entitled Submission of the 2013 Amendment Budget Proposal and the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P) Amendment Budget Proposal, addressed to both the President of the Senate, Senator David Mark and Tambuwal, the President expressed dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Budget Act relating to SEC and some other clauses.

The President had complained about clause 10 of the Appropriation Act, which stated that “all revenue however described, including all fees received, fines, grants, budgetary provisions and all internally and externally generated revenue shall not be spent by SEC for recurrent or capital purposes or for any other matters, nor liabilities thereon incurred except with prior appropriation and Approval by the National Assembly.”

President Jonathan insisted that the clause ought not to have been inserted in the first place.

According to him, “considering the fact that the budget of SEC does not form part of the core 2013 federal budget as presented to the National Assembly, I believe that this clause ought not to have been inserted in 2013 Appropriation Act in the first place.

“Secondly, the import of the clause is tantamount to shutting down the business of the commission with a potential negative impact on the Capital Market.”

However, neither the House nor the Senate deliberated on the President’s proposal before proceeding on a two week recess on June 6.