$1bn Insurgency Fund: House Orders Audit of Excess Crude Account

James Emejo in Abuja

The House of Representatives thursday directed its Committee on Finance to investigate the current value of the Excess Crude Account (ECA) and to among other things, determine if the federal government’s share had been tampered with following the recent approval of the National Executive Council (NEC) to draw $1 billion from the account to enable state governments fight the Boko Haram insurgency.

It mandated the committee to conclude its investigation and report back to the House within four weeks.
The resolution followed a motion sponsored by Hon. Kenneth Chikere (PDP, Rivers) on the need to deduct 13 per cent derivation from the $1 billion approved by the National Economic Council to Fight Boko Haram Insurgency.

But his prayer urging the Federal Ministry of Finance to ensure that the sum representing 13 per cent of the $1 billion approved by the NEC on December 14, 2017, to fight Boko Haram insurgency is deducted and paid to the oil producing states in Nigeria in compliance with section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution only divided opinion among members and led to a heated debate which saw the motion almost literarily killed.

He noted that at the 83rd meeting of the NEC held in Abuja, it approved the deduction of the sum of $1 billion by the federal government from the ECA to fight the Boko Haram insurgency.

Chukere pointed out that the proviso to Section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates 13 per cent of the proceeds of the oil producing states in the country as derivation fund payable to the benefitting states of Akwa Ibom, Rivers, Delta, Bayelsa, Cross River, Edo, Abia, Imo, Ondo, Anambra and Lagos.

According to the lawmaker, the 13 per cent derivation fund payable to oil producing states had not been deducted and paid to them from the $1 billion before or after the approval of the said sum to fight Boko Haram insurgency.
Chikere expressed concern that if the 13 per cent derivation fund is not deducted from the $1 billion and paid to the oil producing states, it would amount to double contribution from the affected states and also a breach of section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution as well as Section 1 of the Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account, etc.) Act, 2004.
But while some lawmakers welcomed the prayers of the motion, others called for restraint.
Essentially, as the debate progressed, it became evident that there were no clear positions on whether the federal government’s share of the monies in the ECA was actually tampered with- otherwise, the National Assembly would have no justification to interfere in issues relating how state governments choose to disburse and spend their own share of the account.

House Speaker, Hon. Yakubu Dogara, cautioned members against making hasty conclusions on the issue.
According to him, the lower chamber shouldn’t get involved in the matter if the federal government’s share of the ECA was not touched in the withdrawal as parliament does not have the powers constitutionally to determine how the states spend their monies.
He said it would amount to putting the cart before the horse if the House decided to meddle in the issue without concrete proof.
“It’s not our duty to settle issues concerning states monies,” he said.
Deputy Speaker, Hon. Yussuff Lasun, said though the motion was important given the devastating effect of the insurgency, the issue should be carefully considered, nevertheless.

He said the confusion appeared to be on how to determine what belongs to states and federal government in the ECA. He said there’s need to understand the clear separation of the Consolidated Account from the states account.
On his part, Hon. Mohammed Monguno (APC, Borno) said the motion was purely speculative and needed facts.
He said: “We better step it down to have hard facts before progressing.”

Hon. Tajudeen Yusuf (PDP, Kogi) said: “We were not cleared. We need proof that it’s states’ money.”
Nevertheless, some lawmakers, including Deputy Minority Leader, Hon. Chukwuka Onyema (PDP, Anambra), and Hon. Nnenna Elendu-Ukeje (PDP, Abia), suggested that the motion be amended, notwithstanding, to suit the intent of the subject matter.
At this point, the Chairman, Rules and Business, Hon. Orker-jev Emmanuel (APC, Benue), made an intervention to salvage the seeming deadlock.

He said the motion was speculative in nature and should be stepped down while for further consultation to determine the true situation of the ECA.

Emmanuel added that “by virtue of our rules, the motion can’t be considered.”
Dogara also said the rules of the House would not allow him to put a direct question on those in support of the motion or otherwise.
He called for mandatory assessment of “what is there in the ECA and what belongs to each tier of government” to be undertaken by the relevant committees.

Nonetheless, the House finally aligned with the speaker’s suggestion that the committee on finance should audit the ECA and give the true account of its status.