President Bola Tinubu‘s refusal to assent to the Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology Establishment Bill, 2025, and the National Library Trust Fund Amendment Bill, 2025, has sparked a critical debate about legislative diligence, institutional accountability, and the integrity of Nigeria’s lawmaking process.
His rejection, backed by detailed constitutional and fiscal concerns, raises a fundamental question: Did the Senate exercise due diligence, or are deeper motives at play?
Dissecting the Flaws: Too Basic to Miss?
The President’s objections are not buried in legalese—they are glaring structural contradictions such as unapproved funding mechanisms, unregulated borrowing powers, contradictory investment clauses and surplus fund assumptions.
For instance, Section 18 of the bill proposes a 1% levy on all imports and exports without the consent of stakeholders. The move glaringly bypasses standard fiscal protocols and risks economic backlash.
Similarly, Section 21 allows borrowing below ₦50 million without presidential approval. This unapologetically paves the way for a loophole ripe for abuse.
Furthermore, Sections 21 and 23 conflict on what funds can be invested, potentially enabling misappropriation of government-allocated resources.
Finally, the assumption that a federally funded institute would have surplus funds to invest is economically unsound and legally inconsistent.
These are not technical oversights—they are fundamental logical flaws. For a legislative body with access to expert committees and legal drafters, such lapses suggest either a breakdown in internal review mechanisms or a deliberate attempt to push through flawed frameworks.
Due Diligence or Political Expediency?
The Senate’s role is to scrutinise bills before passage. The presence of such elementary contradictions raises red flags and germane posers.
Was there a rush to pass politically expedient bills without adequate consultation with stakeholders? Were these bills influenced by lobbying interests seeking financial autonomy or control over public funds? Who are the people behind this initiative? Did internal checks—such as committee reviews and legal vetting—fail, or were they bypassed?
The absence of a clear justification for removing presidential oversight on borrowing, combined with the vague investment provisions, hints at either negligence or strategic manoeuvring.
Sinister Motives? A Possibility Worth Probing
While it’s speculative to assign intent, analysts insist that the structure of the bills raises critical questions: Why embed financial autonomy in a government-funded institute without robust accountability mechanisms? Why introduce ambiguous clauses that could enable fund diversion under the guise of investment? Could these bills be part of a broader attempt to decentralise financial control from the executive to less accountable entities?
If these flaws were intentional, they may reflect a quiet power struggle between legislative and executive arms over fiscal control and institutional autonomy, analysts posit.
The Library Bill: A Trojan Horse?
The National Library Trust Fund Amendment Bill, though less controversial on the surface, was flagged for: “Contradictions with existing laws on taxation and public service remuneration and potential to create unsustainable precedents in agency funding and tenure policies.”
This obviously implies a pattern of bills laced in developmental language but structurally designed to shift financial and administrative norms.
Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for Legislative Integrity
President Tinubu’s rejection of these bills is more than a procedural veto—it’s indeed a call for legislative introspection.
The Senate must therefore, and as a matter of utmost urgency, reassess its internal review processes to ensure bills align with constitutional and fiscal realities, and guard against the infiltration of self-serving clauses masquerading as genuine reform.
Whether this move was a case of oversight or quiet overreach, the implications are clear: Nigeria’s legislative future depends on transparency, diligence, and a renewed commitment to public interest over political convenience.
Finally, Tinubu’s veto should not be treated as a mere executive check—it’s a damning indictment of legislative carelessness. If the Senate cannot uphold the integrity of its own bills, then it risks becoming a rubber stamp for flawed governance. The time for internal reform is now. Anything less is a betrayal of public trust.
