Ben Agande & Emma Aziken
31 March 2004
Abuja — * As Obasanjo Refuses to Sign Budget 2004 Bill
Any individual in possession of more than N.5m at any time risks jail, according to the Money Laundering Bill just signed into law by President Obasanjo yesterday as the Police have been authorised to prosecute such offenders.
But, citing alleged constitutional breaches and usurpation of his powers as enshrined in the constitution, President Obasanjo yesterday withheld his assent to the 2004 Budget and urged the National Assembly to make necessary amends to make the Appropriation Bill conform withthe provisions of the constitution.
Welcoming the assent, Senator Farouk Bello, a member of the Senate Committee on Drugs, Narcotics and Financial Crimes told Vanguard on telephone that the new law would, however, be difficult to implement unless other associated financial laws were reviewed.
Mr. Mohammed Adamu, special assistant in the office of the Special Adviser to the President (National Assembly) in a statement said the new law repealed the Money Laundering Act 2003.
Clause one of the new law reads: "No person or body corporate shall, except in a transaction through a financial institution, make or accept cash payment of a sum exceeding (a)N500,000 or its equivalent, in the case of an individual, or (b) N2,000,000 or its equivalent, in the case of a body corporate."
Individuals who run foul of the new law, according to clause 15 (2) of the new law, would be liable to a prison term of not less than two years or a fine of not less than N250,000. Corporate organisations guilty of the law would also be liable to a fine of not less than N250,000.
Welcoming the new law, Senator Bello told Vanguard yesterday that by reducing the level of cash transaction, the law would help to curb the spates of armed robbery, cash fuelled corruption and at the same time improve the efficacy of the payment system. He averred that the new law would lead to the development of other payment instruments such as plastic money, besides promoting the banking culture. He, however, regretted that other ancillary legislations could derail the objectives of the new law.
"As laudable as the objectives are, they will all come to nothing if not implemented because there are several laws that people break fragrantly. For the Money Laundering Act to be implemented, other associated Acts such as the Dishonoured Cheques Act and the Bills of Exchange Act must also be reviewed," Senator Bello, a former executive with one of the country's leading banks, said.
He said under the subsisting Dishonoured Cheques Act promulgated by the General Obasanjo regime in 1977, presenters of dishonoured cheques were liable to a fine of N5,000, a situation, he warned, could lead to the escalation of dishonoured cheques with the implementation of the new law.
The new Money Laundering Act was pushed through the National Assembly following threats of sanctions by the France-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to enforce global trading sanctions against Nigeria on the basis of the country's allegedly weak legislations against financial crimes.
Obasanjo withholds assent
Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Mr Gabriel Suswan, in a brief reaction said the House would have a second look at the issues raised by the president and if convinced that there were contraventions of the constitution, "we will over-ride his veto." In a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives which was read to members at yesterday's plenary session, President Obasanjo observed there were material "differences between the expenditure proposal sent to the National Assembly and the Bill returned for assent." According him, "the provisions of section 4 of the Bill which grants powers to the National Assembly to impound heads of expenditure and thereby cut off funding for heads of expenditure for which funds have been authorised, purport to vest executive or quasi-executive functions, not envisaged by the provisions of section 81 of the 1999 constitution, in the National Assembly, erode the powers of the president in relation to the implementation of the Appropriation Act and run contrary to the provisions of section 5 of the 1999 constitution, which vest the executive powers of the federation in the president."
The two-page letter reads: "I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 24 March, 2005 (sic) by which authenticated copies of the 2004 Appropriation Bill (the 'Bill') were submitted for my assent.
Having read through the Bill, I am concerned about the constitutional, legal and public expenditure management import of the provisions which have been introduced by the National Assembly." In furtherance of my sworn duty to uphold the constitution and harness the resources of the nation for the maximum welfare of citizens, I am constrained to withhold my assent to the Bill because of the observations stated hereunder.
"There are material differences between the expenditure proposal I sent to the National Assembly and the Bill returned for assent. The provisions of Section 4 of the Bill which grant powers to the National Assembly to impound heads of expenditure and thereby cut off funding for heads of expenditure for which funds have been authorised, purport to vest executive or quasi-executive functions not envisaged by the provisions of section 81 of the 1999 constitution, in the National Assembly, erode the powers of the president in relation to the implementation of Appropriation Act and run contrary to the provisions of section 5 of the 1999 constitution, which vest the executive powers of the federation in the president.
"The provisions of section 9 of the Bill which require the minister of finance to seek a waiver from the National Assembly where, due to revenue shortfalls, amounts appropriated under the Bill cannot be funded, impinge on the executive powers of the president to determine when, how and where appropriated moneys are to be if at all and portend grave danger to prudent public expenditure management.
"The constitutionality of new financial clauses in an Appropriation Bill is doubtful as a Bill, which contains things and provides for matters other than those specified by section 81(2) of the 1999 constitution does not fall to be classified as an Appropriation Bill within the meaning and intent of the constitution. One such financial clauses which cannot validly be included in an Appropriation Bill is section 5 which requires the Accountant-General of the Federation to create an excess revenue account at the Central Bank of Nigeria into which shall be paid the proceeds of revenue accruing to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation over the oil price bench mark adopted in the budget estimates.
"In sum, it is my firm belief that for the reasons stated in Paragraphs (A-D) above, some of the provisions of the Bill highlighted above are unconstitutional while others encroach on the executive powers of the president. I thus urge and request the National Assembly to amend these provisions accordingly," he said. Mr. Suswam said the House would look at the issues raised by the president and act appropriately.
"The essence of the budget was to entrench prudence in government, but we will look at the issues raised by the president. If we are convinced that any of the provisions of the Bill contravenes the provisions of the constitution, we will amend. But be rest assured that if in our opinion we think there are no constitutional breaches, we will over ride the president's veto after 30 days."
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2004 Vanguard. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
