Our Reporter, Abuja
The Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) has issued a detailed defence of the repeal and re-enactment of the 2024 and 2025 Appropriation Acts, responding to earlier criticism by a coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs) that described the process as unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible and opaque.
On Tuesday, the coalition had faulted the National Assembly and the Executive for repealing and re-enacting the two budgets, arguing that appropriation laws are meant to lapse at the end of a fiscal year and warning that the move could legitimise “expenditure without appropriation.” The group also accused government institutions of failing to make key budget documents publicly available, raising concerns about transparency and citizen oversight.
But in a press statement later on Tuesday by the Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu, the Budget Office said while public scrutiny of fiscal governance was legitimate, the CSOs’ position was based on “key misconceptions” about constitutional provisions, fiscal law and legislative practice.
According to the BOF, Sections 80 to 84 of the Constitution provide a sequenced framework for public expenditure but do not prohibit the National Assembly from repealing and re-enacting an Appropriation Act where fiscal realities or implementation challenges require legislative adjustment in the public interest.
“The Constitution does not describe such action as a constitutional impossibility,” the statement said, adding that once the National Assembly passes a repeal and re-enactment bill and it receives presidential assent, the resulting law is valid and binding.
Responding directly to claims that budgets must automatically expire at the end of a fiscal year, the Budget Office said the Constitution does not impose an immutable expiry rule. It explained that legislative extensions of appropriation laws are recognised tools for ensuring the orderly completion of projects, settlement of certified obligations and reconciliation of overlapping fiscal instruments.
On the allegation by CSOs that government had engaged in expenditure without appropriation, the BOF said the criticism conflated different elements of public finance administration, including contractual commitments, cash releases, statutory transfers and debt service, many of which legitimately span more than one fiscal period.
“The relevant legal test is whether expenditure is supported by lawful appropriation or other constitutional or statutory charge,” the Budget Office said, noting that repeal and re-enactment is one of the recognised mechanisms for consolidating and regularising such fiscal authority.
The BOF also addressed transparency concerns raised by the CSOs, reaffirming its obligations under the Fiscal Responsibility Act to ensure timely disclosure and wide publication of fiscal decisions. However, it cautioned that draft budget documents should not be circulated prematurely while legislative harmonisation and enrolment processes are still ongoing, in order to preserve document integrity.
While defending the legality of the process, the Budget Office said it remained committed to improving public access to fiscal information. It pledged to work with relevant institutions to ensure that authenticated budget documents and enrolled Acts are published through official channels as soon as they are finalised, and to expand citizen-friendly budget communication materials.
The statement further noted that Nigeria operates a representative constitutional democracy, where legislative committees and plenary sessions serve as constitutionally recognised channels for translating public interest into law, even as it expressed support for structured public engagement and budget literacy initiatives.
Tanimu Yakubu further said that where macroeconomic conditions and implementation realities demand adjustments, the appropriate response is lawful legislative action rather than informal fiscal practice.
“The repeal and re-enactment process, having proceeded through the National Assembly and received presidential assent, remains a constitutional and legislative instrument for budgetary oversight and alignment,” he said.
