The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) has dismissed claims that the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts constitutes a constitutional breach, insisting that the process is firmly grounded in the Constitution and established legislative practice.
 
In a detailed statement signed by the Director-General, Tanimu Yakubu, the agency stated that recent public commentary questioning the legality of the exercise was based on “key misconceptions” regarding constitutional provisions and fiscal governance.
 
Yakubu noted that while public scrutiny of government finances is legitimate, budget discussions must be anchored in the Constitution, relevant fiscal laws and recognised legislative procedures.
 
According to the BOF, Sections 80 to 84 of the 1999 Constitution clearly outline the process for public expenditure, beginning with the President’s presentation of estimates to the National Assembly, followed by legislative approval through an Appropriation Act, and implementation by the executive within the limits of the law.
 
“The Constitution does not prohibit the National Assembly from repealing and re-enacting an Appropriation Act where fiscal circumstances or implementation realities make such action necessary in the public interest,” the statement noted.
 
It stressed that once the National Assembly passes a repeal and re-enactment bill and the President assents to it, the resulting law is valid and enforceable, describing claims that such action is a “constitutional impossibility” as incorrect.
 
Addressing concerns about the lifespan of budgets, the BOF explained that although Appropriation Acts were usually framed around a fiscal year, the Constitution does not impose a rigid expiry rule that prevents legislative extensions. Such extensions, it said, are often required to complete obligations, settle certified claims, or align overlapping fiscal instruments.
 
In response to allegations of “expenditure without appropriation,” the Budget Office stated that critics were conflating different aspects of public finance, including contractual commitments, cash releases, statutory transfers, and debt servicing, which may span multiple fiscal periods.
 
The agency also reaffirmed its commitment to transparency under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, noting that while Section 48(1) requires timely disclosure of fiscal information, due care must be taken to avoid circulating unauthenticated or conflicting budget documents during legislative harmonisation.