BUDGET POLITICS, CONSTITUTIONAL FINANCE, AND THE RIVERS QUESTION: WHAT THE LAW TRULY REQUIRES

By Meshach Alaputa Jaja The 2025 Rivers State budget occupies a unique place in Nigeria’s fiscal and political history. It was presented to the National Assembly by Mr. President during a period of declared state of emergency in Rivers State—a situation that, as every Rivers person knows, is still in effect. Within this extraordinary context, the Rivers State House of Assembly (RSHA) proceeded on a self-imposed recess, publicly fixing January 26 as its resumption date. However, the Assembly later convened earlier than announced, a move widely interpreted not as a gesture of legislative diligence but as a calculated attempt to sidestep the formal receipt of the budget from *Governor Siminalayi Fubara*. Such maneuvering neither serves fiscal prudence nor advances the development interests of Rivers State. Playing the role of pawns in a broader political chess game only delays progress, particularly when it is evident that Governor Fubara remains firmly in control of the strategy.Compounding this situation are the repeated impeachment threats issued by the RSHA against the Governor and the Deputy Governor over alleged financial misconduct that has not been substantiated. From an objective accounting and public finance standpoint, no verifiable evidence—whether audit reports, appropriation breaches, or unlawful expenditures—has been presented to support these grave accusations. Impeachment is a constitutional safeguard designed to protect the public interest, not a political cudgel to be wielded in the absence of facts. When such threats are issued without demonstrable financial infractions, they appear driven more by political hostility than by genuine concern for fiscal accountability.From an accountant’s perspective, it is essential to rise above political emotion and return to the clear provisions of the Constitution. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) establishes a carefully balanced framework: flexibility for the executive to propose budgets, authority for the legislature to approve them, and safeguards to ensure prudent management of public funds. Crucially, the Constitution does not insist on reckless speed in budget passage; it insists on authorization before spending.What the law emphasizes is fiscal discipline, not political theatrics. Where delays occur—whether arising from political crises, emergency governance arrangements, or legislative conduct—Sections 82 and 122 of the Constitution provide for limited interim expenditure. These provisions permit government operations to continue for up to six months, based on the previous year’s approved budget, pending proper legislative authorization. From a financial management standpoint, this is not a loophole but a deliberate control mechanism designed to ensure continuity of governance while preserving legislative oversight.Accordingly, delayed budget submission or reception, no matter how politically charged, does not automatically amount to a constitutional breach. While such delays may attract political criticism and public debate, the Constitution already anticipates them and provides orderly remedies. What Rivers State urgently requires is not legislative brinkmanship or impeachment threats unsupported by financial evidence, but responsible fiscal cooperation anchored in constitutionalism, accountability, and a shared commitment to development.What they need to know is simple: the Constitution protects Rivers State from fiscal paralysis. Governance can continue lawfully, public funds can remain safeguarded, and development can proceed—if institutions choose responsibility over rivalry, and facts over hate-driven politics.