Contact Us National Politics Business Sports Editorial Entertainment Features Opinion Columns + The N4.9bn contingency fund controversy Our ReporterJune 26, 2013No Comments » THE House of Representatives Committee on Public Accounts (PAC) recently accused the Budget Office of the Federation of misusing N4.5 billion contingency fund. Describing the pattern of expenditure of the sum as “reckless”, the Committee headed by Hon. Solomon Adeola, alleged that the amount was largely spent on trivialities. One of the expenditures that drew the ire of the Public Accounts Committee is the N1.2 billion spent on the Presidential Projects Assessment Committee. The amount was allegedly budgeted for the committee’s work for just three months. Another area that the PAC questioned is the N377 million reportedly used for the settlement of outstanding liabilities, while the Ministry of Finance allegedly collected N410 million for “capacity building”. Also queried by the PAC were the $775,000 contribution to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and N300 million said to have been spent on the 2010 World Cup organised by the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA). A sum of N75 million was reportedly used for lobbying on behalf of the Federal Government in Washington DC, USA, while N257 million was said to be set aside for the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). However, Director-General of the Budget Office, Dr Bright Okogwu, has strongly defended the expenditures. He claimed that most of them got the approval of the presidency. Considering the huge amount involved, a thorough investigation is needed to determine whether the sums were actually spent as listed, and if the Budget Office went beyond its bounds on the controversial expenditures. All the beneficiaries of what appears to be a bazaar of public funds ought to be asked by the Public Accounts Committee to explain their involvement. If the claims of the PAC are true, this appears to be a clear case of abuse of the funds in question. The manner in which the Budget Office permitted itself to be influenced by the presidency on the spending spree is unacceptable. The law which set up the Budget Office vests it with responsibility for economic forecasting and fiscal policy analysis, cost projections and Annual Report on the Federal budget. The manner of disbursement of the contingency fund, however, suggests lack of adequate guidelines on what it is expected to be used for. This should not be so. The uses to which the funds can be put should be properly defined. Therefore, the anger expressed by PAC is in order. In the first place, contingency funds are ordinarily kept in reserve for emergencies, unexpected outflows and the management of economic crises. But, the uses to which these funds were committed are not compelling enough to fit into the definition of an emergency. Neither can the expenditures be justified on the ground of clear and present unexpected economic challenges. The Budget Office will do well to keep within its statutory role of producing independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Federal Budget as approved by the National Assembly. This will enable the National Assembly to have an overview of the budget and make useful decisions regarding spending, taxation, levies and any government deficit or spending. The Budget Office appears to have gone beyond its brief on these expenditures. The Budget Office is expected to operate with clarity of purpose. It should not be given to indiscretion in use of public funds. We expect the Office to put its house in order to avoid a repeat of the rebuke by the PAC. Such public castigation could erode confidence in the office and cast serious doubt on its ability to manage public funds prudently
Posted on: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:42:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015