There is an ongoing impasse between the Nigerian House of Representatives and President Goodluck Jonathan over the request by the former that the latter achieves a 100 percent implementation of the 2012 budget by September 18, 2012.
I write from a position devoid of personal bias or selfish intentions. I write with a view towards ensuring that we are not ridiculed in the global comity of nations. The request that the Federal Government achieves 100 percent is not completely out of place. However, it should be handled carefully.
Looking at the issue from the point of view of the House of Representatives, if the budget was properly drawn up and every item on it duly reviewed under a rigorous and painstaking process, then a deadline of September 18, 2012 for the implementation of a substantial part of the budget given to the president is in order. In a previous article, I suggested that a combination of any of the budgeting methods (traditional, zero-based, priority-based and/or activity-based) be adopted in the process of arriving at our annual national budget. If this had been done, I expect that the growth in the enormous budget approved year-on-year would have led to not just national growth as is being witnessed, but national development as well. It was observed with keen interest the controversy that surrounded the announcement in the year that Nigeria’s budget was to cross the one trillion naira mark and at the same time an ironic silence as the budget crossed the four trillion naira. Instead, it appears that the more the funds committed to developing this nation of ours, the more the inadequate infrastructure in the country deteriorates. A paradoxical situation is instead witnessed as a higher cost of living is closely encountered in a country with a very poor standard of living. Where is Nigeria headed to?
On the other hand, I would also like to call on fellow chartered accountants in the House of Representatives to use their training to educate the honourable members of House of Representatives on how impracticable it is to achieve 100 percent implementation of the budget by the stated date. No institution – private or public – meets its budget exactly. It is because of this that supplementary budgets are made and, subsequently, deficit or surplus budgets recorded. The budget is necessary, however, because it serves as a guide on what to do. It helps to prevent the mismanagement of funds and, if well developed and implemented, leads to advancement for the institution involved. What this means is that having a budget is necessary but its implementation should not override an organisation’s strategic vision. A budget should instead assist in achieving the vision, not hinder it.
Against this backdrop, therefore, if the presidency should go ahead to achieve 100 percent implementation of the budget by September 18, then does it mean that the Federal Government need not earn more revenues nor pay staff salaries for the remaining months of the year? Or does it mean that the House of Representatives signed the budget for 2012 into law with the mindset that it was only for January 2012 to September 2012? What does the House of Representatives mean by 100 percent implementation by September 18? If the budget is implemented by 100 percent by that date, what contingency plans do the legislators have to provide funds to meet exigencies, should they arise, after that date (and they are more likely to arise than not)? I’m sure that there are several brilliant minds in the House of Representatives who can answer these questions that I seek answers to. I want our honourable members to consider all these as they broach their impeachment proceedings. After all, September 18, 2012 is not the end of the Gregorian 2012 calendar year. Or is it?
Ultimatums such as these may lead to mismanagement of funds and circumvention of due diligence which the Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, is known for advocating. It may result in a situation whereby money is spent for the sake of money being spent. It may consequently lead to inflation and further devaluation of the naira, amongst a host of other problems. It is therefore suggested that the House of Representatives should instead focus on investigating how the monies budgeted are spent and whether Nigeria is getting value for money per naira spent.
It is hoped that this is not a ploy to draw attention away from the ongoing prosecution of members of the House of Representatives for various corrupt practices as is being suggested in some quarters. The name Nigeria has suffered a lot of shame already. This stance of the House of Representatives, if not changed, may lead to it being rubbished the more.
No comments:
Post a Comment