The House of Representatives on Wednesday descended into a heated and rowdy session as lawmakers clashed over an attempt to summon President Bola Tinubu to explain the poor implementation of the 2025 budget, the delayed release of appropriated funds, and worsening funding gaps affecting ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs).
The controversy began when Benedict Etanabene, who represents Okpe/Sapele/Uvwie Federal Constituency of Delta State, raised the issue under a matter of personal explanation, calling on the House to invite President Tinubu to account for the persistent failure to implement budgets despite trillions of naira approved by the National Assembly.
|
|
However, the Speaker, Abbas Tajudeen, ruled that the matter could not be debated because it was raised under a personal explanation.
Under the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, a personal explanation allows members to clarify or explain issues affecting them personally or matters requiring immediate clarification. Such statements are ordinarily not subject to debate or decision by the House.
|
|
|
|---|
Mr Tajudeen informed lawmakers that Mr Etanabene’s point had been noted but could not be entertained on procedural grounds, a ruling that immediately sparked protests from some members and briefly disrupted proceedings.
Shortly afterwards, the member representing Aba North and South Federal Constituency of Abia State, Alex Ikwechegh (APGA), revived the issue by bringing a motion under matters of urgent public importance, effectively reopening the debate through the appropriate parliamentary procedure.
Unlike a personal explanation, a motion of urgent public importance is a substantive legislative business. Copies of the motion are circulated to members before debate, allowing lawmakers to deliberate on its contents and vote on clearly stated prayers.
Moving the motion, Mr Ikwechegh argued that Sections 80 and 81 of the 1999 Constitution vest the power of appropriation in the National Assembly, and that the integrity of the budget process depends not merely on passing appropriations but also on the timely release, cash backing, and utilisation of approved funds.
He said disclosures made by ministers and heads of MDAs during the ongoing 2026 budget defence sessions painted a disturbing picture of the implementation of the 2025 budget.
According to him, several MDAs informed lawmakers that they received little or no capital releases throughout the fiscal year, despite funds having been appropriated for critical projects.
The lawmaker said the revelations corroborated repeated protests staged by indigenous contractors throughout 2025 and into 2026 at the Federal Ministry of Finance and the National Assembly over unpaid certificates for completed and verified contracts.
He recalled that some of the protests disrupted legislative activities, as contractors lamented their inability to repay bank loans taken out to execute government projects.
Mr Ikwechegh further recalled that President Tinubu had, during a Federal Executive Council meeting on 10 December 2025, directed the settlement of verified contractor liabilities estimated at N1.5 trillion.
He said the Federal Executive Council subsequently approved N1 trillion to begin clearing the outstanding obligations, while the Minister of Finance also publicly announced plans to settle verified debts.
Despite these assurances, he argued that many contractors have yet to receive payment, resulting in abandoned projects, financial distress for local businesses and broader economic consequences.
The lawmaker also criticised a 29 June 2026 circular issued by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, which requires contractors to obtain certificates of verification and compliance before payment, describing the directive as an additional bureaucratic hurdle that could frustrate already delayed payments.
While the written motion urged the House to commend the President for directing the settlement of verified liabilities and to call for the speedy implementation of that directive, Mr Ikwechegh went further in his presentation, urging lawmakers to invite President Tinubu to personally explain why appropriated funds had not translated into improved security and infrastructure.
“We have invited ministers, security chiefs and members of the Economic Council to explain why budgets are not being implemented. We want to invite the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to this hallowed chamber to explain to Nigerians why we are appropriating trillions of naira while insecurity persists and projects remain uncompleted,” he said.
Debate turns contentious
During the debate, Amobi Ogah (LP, Abia) proposed an amendment urging the House to postpone its planned Open Week to allow lawmakers to concentrate on resolving the budget implementation crisis.
His suggestion was greeted by loud chants of “Carried” from several lawmakers.
The House Open Week is an annual parliamentary engagement designed to strengthen transparency and public participation by allowing citizens, civil society organisations, the media and other stakeholders to interact directly with lawmakers on legislative activities.
However, Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau) opposed the proposal to invite the president.
While expressing support for investigating poor budget implementation, Mr Gagdi argued that parliamentary oversight should follow established constitutional procedures.
He said the National Assembly should first invite ministers and officials directly responsible for implementing government policies rather than summoning the president.
“It is good to hear each other. Democracy and the principle of federalism have constitutional procedures. Holding the government accountable also has a modus operandi. Nigeria operates under different departments and agencies, and it is only proper for Parliament to invite those delegated with constitutional responsibilities,” he said.
His remarks triggered loud interruptions from lawmakers, with several members shouting “Sit down,” plunging the chamber into another rowdy session.
The disorder persisted for several minutes before Speaker Tajudeen attempted to restore order.
“I would want to kindly call for the House to split, so that we can take votes on each of the two sides, if we want to continue,” the speaker said.
The announcement itself generated another round of shouting before calm was eventually restored.
House adopts motion but rejects bid to summon Tinubu
Following the debate, Mr Tajudeen put the substantive prayers contained in the written motion to a voice vote.
The majority of lawmakers supported the motion.
The speaker subsequently ruled that the matter be referred to an ad hoc committee to be constituted later for further legislative action, hitting the gavel to signify the House’s decision.
The ruling immediately prompted another confrontation after Mr Ikwechegh insisted that one of the prayers adopted by the House included an invitation to President Tinubu.
“To confirm that the motion I raised in this hallowed chamber has been adopted, you mentioned referring it to an ad hoc committee. My prayer, sir, is that the Father of the Nation should visit us here in this hallowed chamber so that we can engage him face to face,” he said.
But Mr Tajudeen firmly rejected the claim.
The speaker explained that presiding officers are strictly bound by the written motion submitted before debate and cannot rely on oral additions made during the presentation.
“You gave me a copy of your motion. I am supposed to stick to what you gave me. No member is allowed to move outside the content of the document submitted.
“What you prayed for in your motion was for an ad hoc committee to be set up to look into the matter. You did not pray that Mr President should appear before the House.
“This is completely unparliamentary. Everything in this institution must be done with honour. You went completely away from what you submitted,” he ruled.
Mr Ikwechegh responded that he had made handwritten alterations to his copy of the motion using green ink before presenting it.
However, the speaker maintained that no such amendment appeared on the official copy before the Chair (presiding officer).
Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu also intervened, explaining that although Mr Ikwechegh verbally mentioned inviting the president while presenting the motion, the proposal did not form part of the official document circulated to lawmakers.
He said no member formally moved an amendment to include such a prayer before the House voted.
“Since nobody amended Prayer Five, we cannot invite Mr President on the basis of the document before us. What is written is stronger than the oral conversation,” Mr Kalu said.
In his closing remarks, Mr Tajudeen cautioned lawmakers against deviating from officially submitted motions during debate.
“I want to implore honourable colleagues to be honourable. Whatever you submit to the leadership or the presiding officer as your motion, you should not depart from it by even one word.
READ ALSO:House of Reps probes ₦1.3 billion vote to phantom PFIPC
“What we witnessed today was a complete departure from our parliamentary tradition and practice. The motion that Honourable Ikwechegh read was materially different from the document upon which leave was granted.
“This is unparliamentary and we should desist from doing so,” the speaker said, bringing the matter to a close.
Tie back
During the 2026 budget defence sessions, several ministers and heads of ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) told the House that they received little or no capital releases under the 2025 budget, with some agencies reporting zero releases for capital projects throughout the fiscal year.
The disclosures have reinforced longstanding complaints by contractors handling federal projects, many of whom staged protests at the Federal Ministry of Finance and the National Assembly in 2025 and early 2026 over unpaid certificates for completed and verified contracts.
The contractors warned that prolonged delays in payment had pushed many indigenous firms to the brink of insolvency as they struggled to repay loans obtained to execute government projects.
