The House of Representatives was thrown into a rowdy session on Tuesday following sharp disagreements among lawmakers over a proposal to invite President Bola Tinubu to explain delays in the implementation of constituency projects and the 2025 budget.
The tension erupted after the member representing Okpe/Sapele/Uvwie Federal Constituency of Delta State, Hon. Benedict Etanabene, raised a point of privilege drawing attention to a June 29 circular issued by the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi.
The circular directed all federal Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to suspend payments for constituency and Zonal Intervention Projects (ZIPs) until such projects receive formal verification from the Federal Ministry of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs.
The directive has generated concern among lawmakers, who have repeatedly expressed frustration over the slow implementation of constituency projects despite budgetary approvals.
Etanabene argued that the new directive would further delay the execution of projects captured in the Appropriation Act, leaving lawmakers unable to account to their constituents for stalled developments.
“The budgets are not being implemented presently in Nigeria today. We are implementing the 2024, 2025 and 2026 budgets concurrently. This is not in the best interest of everybody,” he said.
He subsequently urged the House to invite President Tinubu to appear before lawmakers and explain the rationale behind the circular and the persistent delays in budget implementation.
“I wish to move the motion that this House invite Mr. President to come in the soonest to brief this House and explain the need for this circular,” Etanabene added.
His proposal immediately divided members of the Green Chamber, with some lawmakers backing the motion while others opposed it, resulting in a heated exchange that disrupted proceedings.
Speaker of the House, Tajudeen Abbas, intervened and spent several minutes restoring order. He reminded members that motions raised under a point of privilege are not subject to debate.
Following the restoration of calm, Hon. Alex Mascot moved a motion of urgent public importance, highlighting the poor release of appropriated funds to key sectors, including security, and the slow settlement of verified contractor liabilities.
The motion received overwhelming support from members across party lines.
Mascot argued that the credibility of the nation’s budget depended not only on legislative appropriations but also on the timely release and utilisation of funds.
He recalled that during the 2026 budget defence sessions, several ministers and heads of MDAs disclosed that many agencies received little or no capital releases under the 2025 budget, despite approved appropriations.
The lawmaker also referenced President Tinubu’s December 2025 directive ordering the immediate settlement of about N1.5 trillion in verified contractor liabilities, noting that the National Assembly had approved borrowing exceeding N1 trillion to finance outstanding obligations on completed projects.
Despite these measures, Mascot said the release of funds remained slow, leaving critical infrastructure projects stalled, increasing contract costs, exposing contractors to insolvency, and undermining public confidence in the budget process.
He also expressed concern over the Accountant-General’s recent circular suspending payments for constituency and zonal intervention projects pending verification by the Ministry of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs.
In his ruling, Speaker Abbas announced the constitution of an ad hoc committee to engage relevant fiscal authorities on the status of budget releases, settlement of contractor liabilities and the utilisation of approved borrowings.
The committee, to be chaired by the Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, has been given four weeks to submit its report for further legislative action.
Abbas, however, ruled that the proposal to summon President Tinubu could not be adopted, describing such a move as contrary to parliamentary procedure. He maintained that inviting the President in the manner proposed was unparliamentary under the House’s rules.
