Repeal, Re-enactment Of Budgets Constitutional — Budget Office

The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) has dismissed claims that the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts breached the Constitution, insisting that the process is lawful, constitutional and consistent with established legislative practice.

In a press statement issued in Abuja on Wednesday, the Director-General of the Budget Office, Mr Tanimu Yakubu, said public debate on fiscal governance was welcome but warned that discussions on the budget must remain anchored in constitutional provisions, fiscal laws and due legislative procedure.

Yakubu explained that Sections 80 to 84 of the 1999 Constitution clearly outline the framework for public expenditure, under which the President prepares and presents budget estimates to the National Assembly, which in turn authorises spending through an Appropriation Act.

He stressed that nothing in the Constitution prohibits the National Assembly from repealing and re-enacting an Appropriation Act where fiscal circumstances, implementation realities or the need to reconcile fiscal instruments make such action necessary in the public interest.

“The Constitution allows the repeal and re-enactment of an Appropriation Act. Where the National Assembly passes such a bill and the President assents, the resulting law is valid,” the Budget Office stated, adding that it was therefore incorrect to describe the process as a “constitutional impossibility.”

Addressing concerns about the lifespan of Appropriation Acts, BOF noted that while budgets are commonly framed to operate within a fiscal year, the Constitution does not impose an absolute expiry rule that bars legislative extensions where this is required to complete obligations, settle certified claims or align overlapping fiscal instruments.

According to the statement, any extension of an Appropriation Act by the National Assembly represents an exercise of legislative authority, not an act of illegality.

The Budget Office also rejected allegations of expenditure without appropriation, saying such claims often confuse distinct elements of public finance, including contractual obligations, cash releases, statutory transfers, debt service and project commitments that may span more than one fiscal year.

It clarified that the legal test is whether expenditure is supported by a lawful appropriation or other constitutional or statutory authority, and whether appropriate legislative oversight is sought through recognised mechanisms, such as supplementary appropriation, permitted virement, or repeal and re-enactment.

“The repeal and re-enactment process serves to consolidate and regularise fiscal authority through an Act of the National Assembly, thereby reinforcing — not undermining — constitutional control over public funds,” the statement said.

On transparency, BOF reaffirmed its obligations under the Fiscal Responsibility Act to ensure timely disclosure and wide publication of fiscal decisions. However, it noted that openness must be implemented with due regard to document authentication and legislative enrolment processes, to avoid the circulation of conflicting drafts while harmonisation is ongoing.

The Budget Office also defended Nigeria’s representative democratic process, stating that legislative consideration of appropriations through committee work and plenary sessions remains a constitutionally recognised means of reflecting public interest through elected representatives.

While maintaining that the repeal and re-enactment of the budgets remains constitutionally valid, BOF pledged to strengthen public access to fiscal documents and citizen-friendly budget communication.

It said it would continue to enforce strict expenditure controls, work with relevant institutions to publish authenticated budget documents through official channels, and expand initiatives aimed at improving public understanding of fiscal policy choices.

The statement concluded that Nigeria’s public finance system rests on the rule of law and institutional responsibility, adding that where economic conditions require adjustment, lawful legislative action — rather than informal fiscal practice — remains the proper response in the national interest.