After much indecision, perhaps political fright rather than tolerance, President Umaru Yar’Adua eventually seems prepared for the inevitable showdown with the National Assembly on which side – the executive or the National Assembly – has the final say on fiscal legislation. So far, the picture is that the House of Representatives is picking up the challenge and should the going gets tough, the Senate is expected to fortify the struggle on behalf of the National Assembly.
This threatening showdown had been in the offing all along almost since the supplementary budget of 2007, and President Yar’Adua should take major part of the blame.

Throughout his tenure so far, Yar’Adua always pandered to the National Assembly which, rightly or wrongly developed the impression that it was not only merely routine but also that whatever the limit of National Revenue, President Yar’Adua is bound constitutionally to implement even a senseless budget estimate.
Umaru Yar’Adua was cautioned in this column many times that unless he resisted the National Assembly, even if it meant closing down government to sensitise ordinary Nigerians on the issues involved, it was a question of time for the National Assembly to reduce a duly elected executive president to a constitutional robot. The clashes between the two arms in the past, apart from being needlessly watered down, took place when Yar’Adua was in a strong position politically to enjoy people’s support if he exercised his constitutional prerogative to veto unreasonable addition to his budget estimates.

Oh, money was not Yar’Adua’s problem. Billions of dollars from unprecedented world oil price rise were boosting Nigeria’s revenue. Only the naïve and short-sighted would not see the sudden wealth as too tenuous to last long. What anyway, was wrong to save for a rainy day? National Assembly did not seem to care about such eventuality. But Yar’Adua was warned specifically on that issue as and when necessary in this column.

For some unknown reasons, all the warnings were ignored. It was therefore understandable that after enjoying the fruits of bloating Yar’Adua’s budget estimate on the first occasion, National Assembly (members) assumed the status of the fox in the folklore of this blood- thirsty animal and the cock by becoming wild and insatiable.

By the time Yar’Adua woke up and rather half-heartedly tried to resist the National Assembly in padding his (Yar’Adua’s) annual budget, it was too late. Even when Yar’Adua tried as a faint gesture, to veto the 2008-bloated budget, he was deceived to sign it into law and later present a supplementary bill containing his objections instead of humiliating the National Assembly publicly. In vetoing a bloated budget estimate?
Instead of helping the situation, Umaru Yar’Adua allowed himself to be blackmailed with claims of the National Assembly power to legislate on fiscal matters. Is such power unlimited or unqualified?

Unwilling for a showdown, Yar’Adua, rather piously, capitulated. It is now laughable that the same Yar’Adua is eventually resisting the very same National Assembly comprising mainly PDP members he, all along, seemed timid to confront. Unfortunately for Yar’Adua, budget 2009, constitutionally, is a done deal. It is the finance law. For Yar’Adua to turn round now that he cannot enforce that law is to portray himself as unsuitable for that high office.

Clearly, he has chosen a wrong method to fight a wrong issue at a wrong time. He is preparing for a battle in which he is already outmatched and outsmarted. Umaru Yar’Adua presented his budget estimate and was plainly aware that the National Assembly bloated the estimates with questionable addition(s). Still, Nigerians were treated with the political funfair (American style) of signing an objectionable budget estimate into law before national and international media (AFP, Reuters) with the various leadership of the National Assembly taking its turn in photo sessions throughout the ceremony.

Constitutionally and legally, President Yar’Adua is bound to implement such a fiscal law. Are we serious in this country? Otherwise, how can the budget law become impossible to implement? What excuse now makes it impossible for President Yar’Adua to implement the budget, and (such excuse) was not there to provoke him not to sign the 2009-budget bill into law?

Drastic fall in oil prices and world economic recession? Well, in the case of world recession, we may pity Yar’Adua because when the whole place was scattering to pieces, Central Bank governor Chukwumah Soludo was assuring everybody (in effect, Umaru Yar’Adua) that Nigeria would not be affected. But when Yar’Adua was signing the bloated budget into law, the recession already engulfed Nigeria with the shares market becoming completely worthless.
Trust them. There was still an official reason that shares market crashed because foreign investors in Nigeria suddenly withdrew their capital. At least at that stage, world oil prices had crashed to one third of the years-long rate. That was enough ammunition for President Yar’Adua to veto the bloated 2009 budget. Instead, he still signed it into law.

The question for Yar’Adua is clear. When did it dawn on him that he could not implement the 2009 budget? Only after signing it into law? On the grounds of diminished revenue? Okay then, oil prices have also risen by at least half from the less than forty dollars per barrel when the budget estimate was being prepared to the new minimum of sixty dollars per barrel.

Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo must be laughing in self-vindication. When asked in a recent BBC world service television interview to assess Umaru Yar’Adua, after initially declining, Obasanjo could not suppress his feelings in mixing personal tribute with his notorious superiority complex. Obasanjo described Yar’Adua as a nice man but also immediately disrobed him that “… being a nice man does not necessary make a good president.” Solve that riddle. Who was a good president? Obasanjo?

No matter how impossible to implement budget 2009, Umaru Yar’Adua is not well placed in this row in the event of a showdown. Not when the budget is a law signed by Yar’Adua himself. Consequently, that appears to be the fillip for the House of Representatives to threaten him to either implement the budget or dare him (Yar’Adua) to go to court for necessary interpretation of which side – National Assembly or Aso Rock – is at fault.

It is hoped ordinary sense will prevail. Otherwise, it looks gloomy for Yar’Adua. Failure to implement fiscal act is a violation of the constitution and therefore, an impeachable offence. Such risk was avoidable if Yar’Adua had vetoed the bill and spoken directly to Nigerians. The situation now is that the average Nigerian knows little or nothing on this 2009 budget row.

If only Umaru Yar’Adua had faulted needless constituency projects and outrageous untenable series of allowances for National Assembly members as his reason(s) for vetoing the 2009 budget (instead of signing it into law), this row would have been between Nigerians and National Assembly members instead of the current false impression of a clash between a confrontational Umaru Yar’Adua and the National Assembly.

This is not to say that the National Assembly can win the argument all the way. It is always irritating when National Assembly throws its weight about with its claim of constitutional power to legislate on fiscal matters or the power to impeach the president if he fails to implement the budget act entirely as passed.
So what? Such constitutional power is more intended for its reasonableness as a watchdog of National Revenue especially against a drunken sailor type of a bottomless spending president. Such constitutional authority is not meant to legislate Nigeria into economic recession or financial deficit or indeed bankruptcy. In short, National Assembly power on budget is meant to ensure that we live within our means.

National Assembly may have the constitution/law on its side but Umaru Yar’Adua has national interest and the public on his side. Unfortunately, on such matters, the law is an ass. However, the situation may not be entirely hopeless for Yar’Adua.

In any irresponsible show down leading to terrible constitutional consequences National Assembly members stand more to lose. Sum up the annoying various colossal amount they collect as allowances, you will be surprised that at the end of the day, their threats of showdown are no more than the usual sabre-rattling.
On his side, Umaru Yar’Adua is not helping himself by portraying the same National Assembly members as doing Nigerians some kind of favour in agreeing to give up ten per cent of their basic salary in line with economic decline Mr. Umaru Yar’Adua, we want to know how much is their basic salary. Furthermore, how much, Umaru Yar’Adua, is the total sum the entire National Assembly members share among themselves?

Second, why should such earning cut be limited to only basic salary and not the various allowances of these National Assembly members? And if the allowances are already subjected to reduction, what is the total sum of the various allowances of each member? For example, if a member gives up ten per cent of gross earnings of twenty million, forty million naira or fifty million naira, does a member of National assembly, in the context of wage and salary structure in Nigeria, deserve half of that in the first place?

Nigerian taxpayers have the right to know the gross earnings (salary and allowances) of each member of National Assembly.
By the way, Umaru Yar’Adua and National Assembly must attain a middle course on the budget row.
While this controversy raged, for the past one week, a national tragedy was taking place in Delta area of the country. Not officially declared, any description will fit this war - civil War or international war? This sad development is the final military move to contain the growing anarchy from which nobody – Nigerian or foreigners –seems safe.

Since the Obasanjo era, the Niger Delta problem was almost an international conflict with the dissidents (nationalists anywhere, in the conflict zone) constituting themselves into virtual separate entity, issuing its own war bulleting, freely detailing military success, demands, terms of negotiations and peace conditions.
For the past 10 years, it has not been clear which side is in control of Nigeria’s international waters in the Delta region –Federal authorities or Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND). Last week’s military showdown was just waiting to commence.

As in all wars, casualties are ever high and figures speculative and exaggerated. Nigerian military only inadvertently even if vaguely indicated its casualty figures as the major reason for the tragedy. Otherwise, like all military actions, the development in Niger Delta was kept secret. In such situations, retaliation is usually disproportionate.

Worse still, the military operations in Niger Delta have assumed the dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are rights and wrongs in the Niger Delta Tragedy. No Lagos or Abuja resident can remotely imagine the anger of Niger Deltas in terms of environmental destruction. A non-existing social life, complete lack of economic development, oil polluted surroundings, destroyed fishing, which is their major source of living, etc. In the midst of these, flashy cars, even by their own natives annoy visitors from Lagos or Abuja.

The average observer wonders the purpose of the annual billions of dollars budget by Federal and South-south Governments purportedly for the development of Niger Delta.

Still, not all these signs of man’s inhumanity to man will justify the violence in Niger Delta. Better put, whatever their grievances, Niger Deltans by now, must satisfy themselves that they have made their point, not only against Nigeria but also before the international community.
The first news of the Niger Delta showdown was through the foreign media. Otherwise, we might not know much about this fratricide.
Like the Deltans, Nigerian Federal Government must also concede that it has made its point and can no longer be regarded as weak or unable to contain the violence in Niger Delta. All hostilities must end without any condition from either side.

The Federal Government, in its posture of a father-figure must move in with relief materials for the refugees and displaced persons. This should be followed by Federal Government’s direct reconstruction of Niger Delta. In addition, Niger Deltans must query their sons parading as governors what happens to billions collected for or allocated to ecology.

There is the ridiculous aspect of this tragedy in Niger Delta. Only the latest military action woke up the traditional rulers of Niger delta to speak. Suddenly, Nigerians saw the traditional rulers appealing to the federal government to stop military action. Did these traditional rulers believe Niger Delta have a case? If they don’t, they may just keep quiet.

And if the traditional rulers believe there is a case for Niger Delta, why all along, when visiting federal authorities, were they blowing hot and cold on their environmental degradation? Did these traditional rulers inquire from Niger Delta governors what happened to annual ecology fund?
On the other hand, where were the traditional rulers when those described as Niger Delta nationalists indulged in criminal excesses of kidnapping, ransom demand and murder of innocent foreigners and fellow Nigerians? How could such behaviour have enhanced the cause of Niger Deltans?

Initially, foreigners were the targets for kidnapping. In a situation where Federal Government has an international obligation to guarantee the safety of foreigners in our midst and any threat to that obligation must be crushed.
Then suddenly, not just fellow Nigerians but fellow Niger Deltans became targets for kidnappers. What for example did the kidnap of General Ademokhai have to do with the development of Niger Delta? No traditional ruler ever spoke against the kidnappers or the murders they committed.
Enough is enough. Let there be peace in Niger Delta!