READING ON HENRY IDAHAGBON: THE TENSION BETWEEN POLITICAL PLAYERS IN NIGERIA

By Benjamin Atu

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, who is now an incumbent senator, once noted, “No policy in the history of our democracy has generated more tension in the cordial working relationship between the Executive and the Legislature in Nigeria more than the National Budget issue of constituency projects and zonal intervention programmes.” (Budget Padding)

As Curtis says, “Politics is an organised dispute about power and its use, involving choice among competing values.” This desire and struggle for the capacity of an individual or group to modify the conduct of others in a manner they desire is the root of political conflict. To this end, politicians deploy both fair and foul means in their quest to acquire such influence.

Politics is conflictual. Conflict is the framework upon which politics is built. Any effort to separate conflicts from politics usually resort to crisis escalation and chaos. Power is not given, it is taken and Politics is nothing more than the struggle for power. The battle of wits in this game, particularly in Nigeria, is not surprising because that is the framework upon which politics is built. The absence of morality in the game of power is obvious because morality will dwarf your quest for power.

Political interest which gives birth to political crisis started from the beginning of creation in the Book of Genesis.
Genesis 13:8, “Abram (Abraham) said to Lot, “Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we be brethren” (KJV). This plea for peace occurred because their livestock had grown too large for the land, causing disputes between their workers. Abram and his nephew Lot were both wealthy in cattle, and the land could not support them together. Herdsmen of Abram and Lot were quarreling, which threatened the family relationship the same way it is threatening our National Unity today. Political conflict should therefore not be taken as war because Politics was established to create disputes more than solving them.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo said, “The debate that characterises democracy has been mistaken for chaos.” Often, the inevitable disagreements that characterised democracy has been misunderstood as chaos. Debate is part of democracy. Therefore, the onset of a vigorous debate should not be seen as evidence of instability and chaos, as has often been the case between various arms of government in Nigeria because even more developed democracies have their chaos and democratic conflicts. Ours in Nigeria is over exaggerated because rules are not followed and everyone is talking at the same time making all debates to fall on a deaf ears.

Obasanjo also observed, “Democracy indeed constitutes a learning process for all the arms of government; no country has reached an appreciable level of democracy without first passing through a similar experience.” He added that it is only natural for the rest of the world to expect us to practice at home what we preach and try to foster abroad.

No other event in Nigeria’s democracy has generated as much tension as the annual national budget process. The bone of contention is whether the National Assembly has the power to change the figures in the budget proposal submitted by the President. The Appropriation Bill is a carefully prepared estimate of national income and expenditure for a fiscal year, produced by the executive branch and submitted to the National Assembly for enactment into law. It is the National Assembly that ultimately stipulates the amounts to be expended from the Federation Account and the heads and subheads under which those expenditures are made.

Since the inception of democracy in 1999, successive presidents have questioned the National Assembly’s right to determine the final figures of the budget. This dispute has given rise to various tensions over what is popularly called “budget padding.” All former presidents have accused the National Assembly of usurping the executive functions of the President by inserting its own budgets or projects into the bill beyond what the executive sought approval for, a practice they describe as a deviation from the constitution. They argue that the legislative function does not grant the National Assembly the power to demand a higher sum than what the President has proposed. This craving for absolute independence from the executive branch has constituted the regular tension witnessed each year since the inception of democracy in Nigeria.

The politics of distrust and tension did not end with the Obasanjo tenure. It was worse during the administration of former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, when the National Assembly inflated the budget by over 500 billion Naira. This led President Yar’Adua to decline assent to the bill, resulting in a delay in passing the budget into law. The National Assembly was indeed abusing its legislative powers by making wholesale transfers of votes meant for one ministry or department to another, thereby indirectly abolishing the former. There was also usurpation of executive authority by outright deletion of some subheads that should not have been removed. This kind of tension and conflict caused one year’s budget to be delayed by almost four months after it was ready.

However, legislators would not be reelected by their constituents if they did not include constituency development projects that benefit their constituencies in the appropriation bill.

Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, justified the tension between the executive and the legislature by supporting the need for constituency projects in the annual appropriation bill. He remarked that, “Constituency projects help ensure the re-election of incumbent legislators. Voters assess a party’s performance not only by its ability to influence national issues but also by its relevance to local concerns. Constituency projects or zonal intervention projects can be used by the political party in control of the legislature to save vulnerable incumbents, as is the case in the United States of America.”

According to Dogara, “The President is too far removed from the local constituency to know its needs, interests, and aspirations at a micro-level; therefore, the legislature, through constituency projects, ensures at least a minimal federal presence in each constituency. Constituency projects are what the legislature can use to canvass support and carry the President in an election in their constituencies, particularly when they belong to the same party, because constituency projects could be regarded as the President’s achievement.”

Readings on Hon. (Barr.) Idahagbon Henry Williams Omoregie — to be continued.