By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja
Budget padding, the act of inflating a budget with unnecessary or exaggerated expenses, is not explicitly defined as a distinct crime under a specific Nigerian statute. However, it can be considered illegal under existing laws that address corrupt practices, fraud, and financial misconduct.
The Legal Context of budget padding as a crime
As you are aware, no Specific Law on Budget Padding exists. There is no single Nigerian law that explicitly names “budget padding” as a standalone offense with stipulated penalties. However, actions associated with budget padding—such as inflating project costs or inserting unauthorized projects—can fall under broader legal provisions addressing corruption and financial crimes.
Relevant Laws:
Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act (ICPC Act): Section 19 of the ICPC Act covers corrupt practices by public officers, including diverting or attempting to divert public funds for unauthorized purposes. This could apply to budget padding if funds are misallocated for personal gain or non-existent projects, with penalties including up to five years’ imprisonment.
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act: This Act addresses economic crimes like fraud, embezzlement, and misappropriation, which can encompass budget padding when it involves altering budgets with corrupt intent.
Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007): This law mandates transparency in budgeting and could be violated if budget alterations lack executive consent or betray the budget’s objectives.
Criminal Code Act and Penal Code: These codes address fraud, conspiracy, and misappropriation, which could apply to budget padding if it involves deceit or personal enrichment. For instance, fraudulent insertions in budgets could be prosecuted as conspiracy or theft.
Constitutional Provisions: Section 81 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution assigns the President the responsibility to prepare and present the national budget. The National Assembly’s role is to review and approve, not to rewrite or insert unauthorized projects. Unauthorized budget alterations by legislators could be seen as usurping executive powers, potentially constituting an unconstitutional act or economic crime.
Judicial and Public Perspectives
Judicial Precedent: A 2017 Federal High Court ruling (suit no: FHC/L/CS/1821/2017) by Justice Idris, following a case brought by SERAP, declared budget padding unlawful, suggesting it violates legal and ethical standards.
Public and Expert Views: Prominent figures like Femi Falana have argued that budget padding is an economic crime, prosecutable by agencies like the EFCC, especially when alterations occur outside legitimate legislative processes. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo and others have labeled it a form of corruption, equating it to economic sabotage.
Why Budget Padding Persists
Lack of Prosecution: Despite allegations, such as the 2016 budget scandal involving N100 billion in constituency projects or the 2025 budget’s alleged N6.93 trillion padding, prosecutions are rare due to political protections, legislative immunity claims, or investigations being downplayed as “internal matters.”
Legislative Immunity: Some lawmakers, like former Speaker Yakubu Dogara, have claimed immunity under the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, though this is contested when actions involve criminal intent outside legitimate legislative duties.
Practical Implications
Budget padding can be prosecuted under laws addressing corruption, fraud, or abuse of office, but the absence of a specific statute makes enforcement challenging. For example:
Inserting non-existent projects for personal gain could be prosecuted under the ICPC Act or EFCC Act.
Unauthorized budget alterations post-passage may constitute conspiracy or fraud, as argued by legal analysts.
The 2025 budget controversy, where 11,122 projects worth N6.93 trillion were allegedly inserted, highlights ongoing transparency issues, with critics like Peter Obi calling it a “crime scene” of corruption.
Conclusion
While budget padding is not explicitly named as a crime in Nigerian law, it can be prosecuted under existing anti-corruption and financial crime laws, such as the ICPC Act, EFCC Act, or Criminal Code, depending on the specifics (e.g., intent, personal gain, or unauthorized alterations). The lack of a dedicated law and rare prosecutions contribute to its persistence, but judicial rulings and legal provisions suggest it is actionable as an economic crime. For further clarity, a Supreme Court ruling could define the legislature’s role and the legality of budget padding more precisely.
