The lawmaker representing Esan North‑East/Esan South‑East Federal Constituency in Edo State, Sergius Ogun, explained to Leke Baiyewu why indiscriminate borrowing by a president and excess public debt should be an impeachable offence. He noted that his bill to amend the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007 and prescribe punishments for breaching the law has passed second reading. “Why did you sponsor it?” Baiyewu asked. Ogun replied that it is for compliance with the Act, specifically Section 41. Subsection 1 states that government borrowing must be for capital expenditure and human development, on concessional terms, and that public debt as a proportion of national income must remain at a sustainable level as prescribed by the National Assembly. Subsection 2 allows the Federal Government to borrow from the capital market with legislative approval, and Subsection 3 declares non‑compliance an offence.
Ogun clarified that the amendment seeks to add a new Subsection 3 to prescribe the offence and its sanctions. The proposed wording reads: “(3) Non‑compliance with the provisions of this section shall make the action taken an impeachable offence and the offender shall be liable on conviction to a fine of N500,000,000 (five hundred million) or imprisonment for a term of three years, or to both such a fine and imprisonment.” He argued that merely labeling an act as an offence without penalties is ineffective; the amendment provides concrete sanctions.
Addressing concerns that impeachment is practically impossible, Ogun emphasized that the law’s existence matters. He cited the recent episode involving Central Bank Governor Godwin Emefiele, who sought an extension from President Muhammadu Buhari for exchanging old naira notes. The House of Representatives, led by Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila, warned that failure to appear before the committee would result in a warrant for arrest. Although the executive and the CBN governor were aligned, the Speaker invoked the law, demonstrating that legal provisions can compel accountability regardless of political relationships.
Ogun warned that without such laws, future presidents—perhaps from opposition parties—could act recklessly without recourse. He stressed that legislation is not crafted for immediate circumstances alone but for future generations. He referenced the Electoral Act as an example of enduring legal frameworks and argued that laws must anticipate scenarios where the executive and legislature belong to the same political family.
He recalled the tenure of Yakubu Dogara and Bukola Saraki, both members of the All Progressives Congress, who challenged President Buhari’s “reckless” actions, such as the unauthorised payment for Super Tucano jets. Citing Sections 80‑84 of the Constitution, Ogun explained that money cannot be released from the Consolidated Revenue Account without proper approval, and that the 8th Assembly had even gathered signatures to impeach the president, though political dynamics prevented success.
Regarding the current Buhari administration, Ogun affirmed that it has breached Section 41 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, prompting the amendment. He noted that the regime’s relentless borrowing has inflated the national debt, and that the President is unlikely to sign the bill as he prepares to leave office. Recent parliamentary proceedings, such as the request for N22.7 trillion in Ways and Means Advances—of which only N1 trillion was approved—illustrate the executive’s overreach. Ogun concluded that while Buhari may become a lame‑duck president, the amendment will serve as a deterrent for future leaders, ensuring that impeachment remains a viable tool for accountability.
Comments are closed for this story.