ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The synergy between President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Members of the National Assembly may have collapsed as majority Members of the House of Representatives, on Wednesday insisted that the President and his economic team must appear before the Parliament.

The motion which was predicated upon the inability of the executive to fund the 2025 budget, despite the appropriation and approvals from the National Assembly, created a serious tension on the floor of the House and divided the Lawmakers, with majority, including Members of the ruling party, supporting the invitation of the President to the Parliament.

The motion which was sponsored by the Member representing Aba North/Aba South Federal Constituency of Abia State, Hon. Alex Ikwechegh, decried the poor funding of appropriated budgets and persistent delays in the release of capital funds to Ministries, Departments and Agencies.

This came on the heels of a Constitutional Point of Order raised by the Member representing Okpe/Sapele/Uvwie Federal Constituency of Delta State, Hon. Benedict Etanabene, who informed the House that he had seen a circular from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation announcing the suspension of funding for zonal intervention projects pending fresh verification requirements.

The debate quickly divided the chamber, with lawmakers across party lines expressing frustration over what they described as the slow implementation of projects approved by the National Assembly.

While the motion enjoyed overwhelming support, attempts by some Members to oppose aspects of it were drowned out by loud shouts and protests from their colleagues, forcing the Speaker to repeatedly call for order.

Moving the substantive motion titled, “Urgent need to address the poor funding of appropriated budgets and delayed releases to MDAs as revealed during the 2026 budget defence sessions,” Ikwechegh argued that the credibility of the appropriation process depends not only on the passage of the budget but also on the timely release and utilisation of funds.

He said, “The powers of appropriation in the National Assembly, and the credibility of the budget rests not only on the size of the figures appropriated, but on the fidelity, timeliness with which appropriation funds are released, cash-backed, and utilized for ministries, departments, and agencies.

“The House also notes that during the 2026 budget defence sessions, honourable Ministers and heads of MDAs disclosed deeply troubling levels of funding of 2025 budget, including sectors that recorded zero capital releases for the entire fiscal year, and others that received only a token, a fraction of their appropriated capital votes.

“The House is aware that these disclosures are consistent with repeated protests staged in 2025 and early 2026 by indigenous contractors of Nigeria that have invested heavily to do business with the Nigerian government at the Federal Ministry of Finance and at the gates of the National Assembly; on one occasion, disrupting plenary sittings because due to unpaid certificates for completed and verified projects with many contractors unable to service bank loans obtained to execute government projects.”

Ikwechegh recalled that President Tinubu had, at a Federal Executive Council meeting on December 10, 2025, directed the immediate settlement of verified contractor liabilities estimated at about N1.5tn and approved the establishment of an inter-ministerial committee to reconcile records and facilitate payment.

According to him, the House is also aware that His Excellency President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the Federal Executive Council of 10th December, 2025 expressed grave displeasure at the backlog, directed the immediate settlement of verified contractor liabilities of about N1.5tn and constituted an inter-Ministerial Committee to harmonise records and deliver a lasting funding solution, declaring his readiness of the government to even borrow when necessary to settled verified obligations.

“The House is further aware that directive of the National Assembly approved the borrowing in excess of N1tn specifically to finance the settlement of outstanding obligations on completed and verified capital projects, in addition to dedicated provisions in the 2026 Appropriation Act for contractor liabilities, while the Honourable Minister for Finance have announced the clearance of substantial sums announcements, which contractors dispute as partial announcements.”

He expressed concern that despite the presidential directive and legislative approvals, the release of funds to MDAs had remained slow.

“The House is concerned that notwithstanding the clear directive of the President, the legislative approvals and the ministerial assurances to MDAs remain slow, if I may say unexistent, stalling critical projects, escalating contract costs, exposing contractors to insolvency, and rising non-performing loans and eroding public trust in the budget of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, approved by this parliament.”

The Lawmaker also criticised a Treasury circular dated June 29, 2026, reportedly issued by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, which requires a Certificate of Verification and Compliance from the Federal Ministry of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs before payments can be made for constituency projects.

He said, “The House is disturbed by recent newspaper reportage of a federal treasury circular dated 29th June, 2026 issued by the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation, halting payments for zonal intervention and constituency projects, unless a certificate of verification and compliance is first obtained from the Federal Ministry of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs, a directive which however well-intentioned, introduces yet another layer of bureaucratic bottlenecks at the very moment Mr President has demanded speed and risks turning back the hands of the clock by subjecting duly appropriated, procured, and executed projects to further delay.”

He therefore, prayed the House to urge the President, “as a father of the nation, to make out time, since we have invited Ministers, invited Security Chiefs, invited different members of the Economic Council to come here and explain to us why the budget is not being implemented.”

Earlier, Etanabene had urged the House to invoke its constitutional oversight powers by inviting President Tinubu and members of his economic team to explain the rationale behind the reported suspension of constituency project funding.

Citing Sections 4, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), he argued that the legislature had a responsibility to demand accountability over the implementation of budgets it had approved.

He said, “I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Constitution be tested. I want to urge this House to agree that we summon Mr President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria together with his financial team to please come to this House in line with the provision of the Constitution to brief Nigerians exactly what is happening, because the stories are not complimentary at all.

“We cannot explain to the constituents what is happening. Today, we collect money. We will not be able to give a proper explanation for it. The budgets are not being implemented. Presently, in Nigeria today, we are implementing 2024, 2025 and 2026 budgets running concurrently. This is not in the best interest of everybody.

“So, Mr Speaker, I wish to move the motion that this House invite Mr. President to come and explain and make us know the need for this circular that has been released.”

However, the Speaker, Tajudeen Abbas, ruled that the aspect of the debate seeking to summon the President could not be adopted, describing such a move as inconsistent with parliamentary practice.

According to the Speaker, “the issue of summoning the President as included in the debate of Hon Ikwechegh cannot be adopted by the House,” noting that “such action is unparliamentary.”

Despite the effort of Speaker Tajudeen Abbas to save the day, the Lawmakers appeared agitated and resolute to revolt against the President.

Some of them who got the return tickets to contest the 2027 elections feel they may not have anything on ground to campaign with, as the Zonal Intervention Projects appear suspended; while those who lost their tickets feel it was because of non implementation of constituency projects that accounted largely for their lost.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Remodelled Abuja City gate will be unveiled today.

#ProjectsFCT2026
#FCT31DaysCommissioning

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting at Maitama has ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to pay a fine of N10million for defaming a former Minister of Power, Dr. Olu Agunloye, through a libelous publication on its social media handles.

The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Peter Kekemeke, found that the anti-graft agency damaged the claimant’s reputation.

Agunloye, in a N10billion defamation claim he filed before the court, insisted that the publication the EFCC carried on its website and X (formerly Twitter) handle, titled: “EFCC arraigns Agunloye over $6billion fraud,” tarnished his image and occasioned reputational damage against him.

In the writ of summons marked FCT/HC/CV/1199/2024, which he filed through his team of lawyers led by Mr. Adeola Adedipe, SAN, he claimed that the agency dented his good name and dragged his integrity into the mud.

He told the court that the commission accused him of being a corrupt and fraudulent individual through the defamatory post it shared on its official website and other allied online platforms.

He prayed the court to declare that the post was false and defamatory.

Besides, he sought an order for EFCC to retract the publication against him and tender an unreserved apology.

He equally sought the award of N1billion to him as general and exemplary damages.

Delivering judgment in the matter on Wednesday, Justice Kekemeke held that the publication the claimant complained about had all the ingredients of defamation.

He held that the publication made by the EFCC was in permanent form with the name of the claimant mentioned.

The court further held that EFCC’s sole witness in the case, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Umar Hussain Babangida, despite initially denying knowledge of the said publication, later admitted that it was from the defendant’s media department.

According to the judge, the case did not challenge EFCC’s power to investigate economic and financial crimes as claimed by the defendant.

He noted that having gone through the charge in the criminal case against the claimant before the Apo Division of the FCT High Court, there is nowhere in it that alleges fraud, contrary to the EFCC’s publication.

The court added that the issue of fraud is not in any of the exhibits tendered before it in the course of hearing the case, as stated in what it described as a “sensational headline” in the publication.

The judge held that EFCC failed to prove the truth of the said publication.

Stressing that the EFCC is not a news outlet but an investigative agency, Justice Kekemeke held that the commission knew that Agunloye was not involved in a fraud of $6billion.

The court held that the claimant successfully proved that the publication against him was accentuated by malice, and resolved issues one and two in favour of the former minister.

The court declared that the contentious publication on EFCC’s official website and X handle was false and defamatory.

It ordered the commission to retract the publication and offer a public apology to the claimant on its website and in two other national dailies.

The court further issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining EFCC from defaming the former minister.

Meantime, reacting to the judgment on Wednesday, counsel for EFCC, Dr. Wahab Shittu, SAN, said the commission would file an appeal to challenge it.

Shittu, SAN, contended that the case was premature, as the claimant’s criminal charge had yet to be concluded and judgment delivered.

“Though the court has delivered its judgment, we are definitely going to appeal the court’s decision,” he added.