By Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka in Abuja
When a legislature appropriates over N1.3 billion to an agency that may not exist, the question is not just about money. It is about credibility. On Wednesday, the Senate faced that question head-on after a motion sought to condemn and investigate the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC). Instead of acting, the Senate deferred to the Executive. The decision raises a fundamental tension in Nigeria’s democracy: should the National Assembly wait for the President’s anti-graft agency to finish, or should it assert its constitutional power of oversight immediately?
The motion was moved by Senator Sumaila Kawu, Kano South, at the start of plenary. He invoked Order 9 and 9C of the Senate Rules, a privilege motion meant to protect the integrity of the institution.
The subject was PFIPC, listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act under Budget Code 0111062001.The allocation: N1,302,978,784.
Kawu’s argument was blunt. The inclusion of a “purportedly non-existent or unauthorised entity” undermines the entire appropriation process.
It exposes weaknesses in budget scrutiny and erodes public confidence.
More than that, he warned, it subjects the Federal Government to domestic and international criticism over transparency and fiscal governance. In essence, the Senate was being asked to defend its own name.
The prayers were direct. First, condemn the administrative lapses or fraudulent schemes that allowed PFIPC into the budget. Second, mandate the Committees on Ethics and Appropriations to investigate how the sum was proposed, scrutinized, and approved. The investigation was to identify the MDAs and officials responsible. It was also to determine if any funds had been released or if any bank account had been opened under that budget line.
This is textbook legislative oversight. The Constitution gives the National Assembly the power of the purse and the duty to monitor how it is spent. A budget line for a possibly ghost agency is precisely the kind of matter that demands immediate parliamentary inquiry.
However, the Senate, led by Deputy Senàte President Barau Jibrin, did not put the prayers to a vote. The reason given: President Bola Tinubu had already directed the ICPC to investigate.
Barau told Kawu, “The Senate has noted it, but since the issue is being critically investigated by ICPC… the Senate will await the report of ICPC before taking any action.” On the surface, this appears to be a gesture of comity between arms of government.
Beneath the surface, it is problematic.
Deferring to the Executive to investigate a matter that stems from a legislative product risks ceding constitutional authority. The ICPC investigates corruption and financial crimes. The National Assembly investigates how its own budget was made and whether due process was followed. These are parallel, not mutually exclusive, mandates.
By stepping back, the Senate may have sent the wrong signal: that it cannot probe itself until the Executive permits it. That weakens the doctrine of separation of powers.
Senator Kawu himself seemed to accept the outcome, saying he was satisfied the motion was heard. He explained he used Order 9 and 9C specifically to prevent leadership from blocking a matter so central to the Assembly’s mandate.
His persistence highlights a deeper issue: the budget process. How did PFIPC, with a specific code and over N1.3bn, pass through ministry proposals, executive submission, committee scrutiny, and plenary passage without detection?
If it is truly non-existent, then the failure is systemic. If it exists but was unauthorised, then the failure is political. Either way, the National Assembly cannot outsource the answer.
Waiting for ICPC has practical benefits. It avoids duplication and allows criminal investigators to work.But it also creates delay and removes public, transparent parliamentary debate from the process. The public does not just want culprits punished. It wants to know how its representatives allowed this to happen.
That explanation can only come from the legislature itself.
In the end, the Senate’s rejection was not a rejection of the problem. It was a postponement. Whether that postponement protects institutional integrity or diminishes it will depend on what happens next. If the ICPC report comes and the Senate acts decisively, then deference may be justified. If not, then Wednesday’s decision will be remembered as the day the Senate chose to wait rather than lead.
