Reps in Rowdy Session Over Motion to Summon Tinubu Over 2025 Budget Delays

House of Reps

Reps in Rowdy Session Over Motion to Summon Tinubu Over 2025 Budget Delays

The House of Representatives was thrown into a heated rowdy session on Wednesday as lawmakers sharply disagreed over a controversial motion seeking to invite President Bola Tinubu to appear before the National Assembly to explain the slow implementation of the 2025 Appropriation Act and delays in funding for constituency projects. The chaotic scene unfolded during plenary after two separate motions raised concerns over a June 29 Treasury Circular issued by the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, which directed all federal Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to halt payment processing for constituency and Zonal Intervention Projects (ZIPs) unless they had first obtained a Certificate of Verification and Compliance from the Federal Ministry of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs. The directive, aimed at strengthening accountability and transparency in project implementation, was seen by some lawmakers as an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that would further stall already delayed budget execution.

The controversy began when Benedict Etanabene, the lawmaker representing Okpe/Sapele/Uvwie Federal Constituency of Delta State, raised a point of privilege over the Accountant-General’s circular. Etanabene argued that the directive could significantly undermine the implementation of projects already captured in the 2025 budget and frustrate lawmakers’ efforts to deliver constituency projects to their constituents. He urged the House to summon President Tinubu to explain the slow pace of budget implementation and the rationale behind the directive, insisting that the executive owed Nigerians and the National Assembly a clear explanation. A similar motion was then moved by Alex Mascot Ikwechegh (LP – Abia State), who specifically called for President Tinubu to appear before the House to address the persistent funding delays. Ikwechegh highlighted revelations made by ministers and heads of MDAs during ongoing 2026 budget defence sessions, which showed that several agencies received little or no capital releases throughout the 2025 fiscal year. He also cited repeated protests by indigenous contractors over unpaid certificates for completed projects, many of whom had been pushed to the brink of insolvency after borrowing from banks to execute government contracts. Ikwechegh further recalled that President Tinubu had, at a Federal Executive Council meeting in December 2025, directed the immediate settlement of verified contractor liabilities estimated at about N1.5 trillion. However, he argued that despite the presidential directive, releases to MDAs remained slow or non-existent. Heating up the debate, Ikwechegh proposed an amendment to suspend plenary for one week until the issue was resolved.

READ ALSO:

The proposal to summon the President immediately divided the House, with some lawmakers supporting the invitation, arguing that the President, as head of the executive arm of government, should account for the implementation of the national budget, while others strongly opposed the move. Among those who opposed the invitation was Yusuf Gagdi (APC – Plateau State), who argued there was no constitutional basis for summoning the President. He insisted that ministers and heads of MDAs were constitutionally responsible for budget execution and should instead be summoned to address the issues. Gagdi called for the motion to be divided so that lawmakers could vote separately on the controversial prayer to invite the President. His remarks triggered loud protests from members, leading to shouting matches across both sides of the chamber as lawmakers attempted to outshout one another. The heated exchanges disrupted proceedings for about 30 minutes, with some members chanting “Sit down! Sit down!” at their colleagues.

Amid the disorder, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas repeatedly called for order and eventually ruled against the motion. Abbas explained that the prayers contained in the motion as read on the floor differed from those contained in the document originally submitted by the sponsor, describing it as a deviation from the approved text. He declined requests to subject the controversial prayer to a separate vote, insisting that the House would proceed in line with its established rules and legislative procedures.

The June 29 circular issued by the Accountant-General’s office mandates all Accounting Officers, Directors, Heads of Finance and Accounts, and Internal Audit units across MDAs to reject any payment request for constituency projects that does not have the Ministry of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs’ Certificate of Verification and Compliance. According to the circular, the decision followed observed lapses in compliance with an earlier circular issued by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation on September 20, 2023, which introduced revised guidelines for the implementation of constituency projects. The Treasury Office stated that the measure is aimed at tightening financial controls, improving transparency, and ensuring that public funds are released only for duly verified and approved projects. Constituency projects, officially known as Zonal Intervention Projects, are federal budget projects nominated by members of the National Assembly to address developmental needs in their constituencies. Over the years, the programme has come under increasing scrutiny for abandoned projects, duplication, poor execution, weak monitoring, and misuse of public funds.

The incident highlighted growing frustration among lawmakers over the pace of the 2025 budget implementation, delayed releases of capital funds to MDAs, and the mounting backlog of unpaid contractors—issues many legislators say are hampering infrastructure delivery and undermining public confidence in government spending. Earlier reports had indicated that the 2025 budget faced significant implementation challenges, with capital implementation only beginning in October 2025, several months after the budget was signed into law. Economic stakeholders had expressed worry over the delay in budget preparation and execution, with some describing the budgeting process as chaotic and uncoordinated.