Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) has firmly defended the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts, describing recent claims of constitutional breach, fiscal illegality and lack of transparency as misplaced.
In a detailed clarification issued by the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu, the agency said while public interest in fiscal governance is legitimate, Nigeria’s budget debate must be guided by the Constitution, relevant fiscal laws and established legislative practice.
The BOF noted that Sections 80 to 84 of the 1999 Constitution clearly outline the process for public expenditure, beginning with the President laying estimates before the National Assembly, followed by legislative approval through an Appropriation Act and implementation by the Executive strictly within the authority granted.
According to the statement, the Constitution does not prohibit the National Assembly from repealing and re-enacting an Appropriation Act when fiscal realities or implementation challenges make such action necessary.
> “Where the National Assembly passes a repeal and re-enactment bill and the President assents, the resulting Act becomes valid law. It is therefore incorrect to describe a duly enacted repeal and re-enactment as a ‘constitutional impossibility’,” the Budget Office stated.
Addressing concerns about the lifespan of Appropriation Acts, BOF explained that although budgets are typically framed within a fiscal year, the Constitution does not impose an immutable expiry rule that prevents legislative extensions.
It noted that extensions are often required to allow for the orderly completion of projects, settlement of certified claims and alignment of overlapping fiscal instruments.
> “Where the National Assembly, in exercise of its legislative powers, extends the operational window of an Appropriation Act, such extension is an expression of legislative authority, not an illegality,” the statement said.
The Budget Office also dismissed allegations that government expenditure occurred without appropriation, describing such claims as a misunderstanding of public finance administration.
It explained that the claims wrongly conflate contractual obligations, statutory transfers, debt service, cash releases and project commitments that may span multiple fiscal years.
> “The legal test is whether expenditure is supported by lawful appropriation or other constitutional or statutory charge,” BOF stated, adding that recognised instruments such as supplementary appropriation, virement or repeal and re-enactment provide proper legislative oversight.
According to the agency, the repeal and re-enactment process actually strengthens constitutional control of public funds by consolidating fiscal authority through an Act of the National Assembly.
On transparency, BOF reaffirmed its obligations under Section 48(1) of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which mandates timely disclosure and wide publication of fiscal information.
However, it cautioned that transparency must be balanced with document integrity and legislative authentication processes to avoid circulating conflicting drafts during harmonisation.
> “Transparency requirements must be implemented with due regard to document integrity, legislative authentication processes, and the need to avoid circulation of conflicting drafts,” the office stated.
While emphasising that Nigeria operates a representative democracy where budget decisions are channelled through elected lawmakers, BOF said it supports structured public engagement through budget literacy programmes and stakeholder consultations.
The agency also announced steps to strengthen access to fiscal documents, including ensuring that authenticated budget documents and enrolled Acts are made available through official channels once finalised.
> “BOF remains committed to fiscal discipline, transparency, and constructive engagement with all stakeholders in the national interest,” Yakubu said.
The Budget Office concluded that Nigeria’s public finance system is anchored on the rule of law and institutional responsibility, stressing that lawful legislative action — not informal fiscal practices — is the proper response to changing macroeconomic conditions.
It maintained that the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 budgets, having passed through the National Assembly and received presidential assent, remains a valid constitutional tool for budgetary oversight and alignment.
–