When President Muhammadu Buhari presented his first full budget proposal to the National Assembly in late 2015, it carried the immense weight of the “Change” mantra. The Nigerian public had high expectations that this document would be the blueprint for rescuing the economy from years of mismanagement.
Enter Senator Dino Melaye. While contributing to the debate on the Senate floor, the notoriously theatrical politician from Kogi State declared that the 2016 Appropriation Bill was, for the first time in 17 years, a “holy budget.”
This phrase wasn’t just typical legislative hyperbole. It was a political statement designed to signal a seismic shift in governance—a move away from the corruption and opaque budgeting of the past towards transparency and service delivery. Melaye even claimed he was “once blind, but now he could see.”
But what exactly made it “holy,” and how quickly did that holiness fade when the subsequent controversy of budget “padding” hit the headlines? We break down the promise versus the reality of that historic document.
Why Melaye Called it the “Holy Budget” (The Promise)
Melaye’s high praise was rooted in the visible departures the 2016 budget proposal made from its predecessors, aligning with the core promises of the APC government.
A. Focus on Capital Expenditure
Historically, Nigerian budgets were dominated by Recurrent Expenditure (salaries, overheads, debt servicing), leaving little for development. The 2016 budget promised a high ratio of Capital Expenditure—funding for roads, power, and infrastructure—signaling a commitment to economic diversification and job creation.
B. Anti-Corruption Sensibilities
The term “holy” was largely a moral, anti-corruption endorsement. Melaye publicly noted that the budget had removed what he called “celestial, spiritual and diabolical activities” and other questionable allocations that were common in previous years. Specifically, he highlighted the shift from funding vague, questionable line items (seen as conduits for siphoning money) to allocating funds for programs aimed at the masses:
-
Social Investment Program (SIP): This was the flagship program, promising monthly stipends to unemployed youths and school feeding programs—a direct expenditure aimed at poverty reduction.
-
Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB): The administration adopted ZBB, which theoretically requires every expenditure to be justified from a zero base, rather than simply basing it on the previous year’s allocation. This was meant to stop the lazy practice of inflated, inherited budgets.
To a populace weary of endless corruption scandals, a budget that appeared to prioritize capital projects and social welfare, while eliminating obvious corruption holes, felt genuinely “holy.”
The Descent into Profanity: Budget Padding and Controversy
The “holy” status of the 2016 budget was short-lived. The document quickly became the center of one of the biggest legislative scandals Nigeria had seen, leading to intense acrimony between the Executive and the Legislature.
A. The Case of the “Missing” Budget
The controversy started almost immediately. Soon after the President’s presentation, the Senate claimed the original document was missing and a “doctored” version had appeared. The Presidency was forced to publicly withdraw the initial document and resubmit a “corrected” version, throwing the entire process into confusion and damaging the budget’s integrity from the start.
B. The Budget Padding Scandal
The term “budget padding” entered Nigeria’s political lexicon fully during the 2016 saga. Abdulmumin Jibrin, the then-Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriation, accused the Speaker and other principal officers of illegally injecting billions of Naira worth of non-existent or frivolous projects into the budget document before it was passed.
-
The Allegations: The insertions allegedly included projects that were not proposed by the ministries and were seen as a way for legislators to personally enrich themselves or fund their constituency projects outside the proper financial mechanisms.
-
The Aftermath: The Minister of Health famously disowned the budget allocations submitted on his ministry’s behalf, stating the figures had been doctored. The scandal highlighted the deep, systemic rot in the budgeting process, proving that the system remained corruptible, regardless of the President’s personal integrity.
The Lasting Lesson of The Budget Fiasco
The 2016 budget, initially praised by Melaye, became a powerful case study in the difficulty of executing “change” in a deeply entrenched political and bureaucratic system.
The main takeaway is clear: A budget’s quality is not measured by its lofty promises or political labels (“holy”), but by the integrity of the process and the fidelity of its implementation.
-
The Flaw of Implementation: Even if the Buhari administration submitted a “clean” budget, the legislative and civil service arms proved capable of derailing it through padding and the insertion of self-serving projects.
-
The Budget is Law: Melaye himself, later in 2016, reversed his tone to criticize the Executive for non-implementation, correctly stating that “under-implementation is a crime.” This shift underscored the political reality: the Executive and Legislature must share accountability for both the content and the execution of the budget.
The “holy budget” ultimately exposed the powerful nexus of bureaucracy and legislative self-interest that continues to undermine fiscal discipline in Nigeria. It served as an early warning that fighting corruption required more than just a President’s goodwill; it required a complete overhaul of the institutional process.
