FG defends Executive Order 9, says It upholds constitutional revenue provisions

The federal government has defended Executive Order 9 (EO9), insisting that the directive does not amount to the President making new laws but rather enforces existing constitutional provisions on the management of Federation revenues.

In a statement issued on Monday, the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation and Secretary of the Implementation Committee on Executive Order 9, Tanimu Yakubu, said commentary suggesting that the order represents executive overreach misinterprets both the Constitution and the fiscal issues at stake.

According to the statement, EO9 is anchored on Section 80(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which mandates that all revenues or other monies raised or received by the Federation be paid into and form one Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The government maintained that public revenues cannot lawfully be retained or applied outside constitutionally recognised funds.

It also cited Section 162 of the Constitution, which requires that revenues accruing to the Federation be paid into the Federation Account for distribution according to constitutional allocation principles.

The statement stressed that revenues must first enter constitutionally recognised accounts before they can be appropriated, shared or spent.

The government explained that EO9 specifically targets the oil and gas sector, directing the direct remittance of petroleum revenues — including royalties, taxes, profit oil and gas, penalties and related receipts — into constitutionally recognised accounts. It added that the order strengthens reconciliation, transparency and reporting across revenue collection and custody processes.

Addressing concerns about legislative interference, the statement said the order does not intrude into the powers of the National Assembly. It noted that Section 60(1) of the Constitution preserves the procedural autonomy of the legislature and that EO9 does not amend the Petroleum Industry Act or repeal any existing statute. Instead, it described the directive as an executive instrument issued under Section 5 of the Constitution to ensure the faithful execution of the law.