Executive Order 9 (EO9), though presented as a measure of constitutional fidelity, raises serious constitutional and statutory concerns that cannot be overlooked. The issue is not whether public revenues must be properly accounted for — that principle is undisputed. The concern is whether the President may, through an executive instrument, alter or recalibrate a revenue framework already structured by legislation, particularly under the .
The Petroleum Industry Act establishes a detailed fiscal and operational architecture governing petroleum revenues, including cost recovery, statutory deductions, commercial operations of NNPC Ltd., and eventual remittance obligations. If EO9 mandates “direct remittance” in a manner that modifies, accelerates, or reorders that statutory scheme, then it goes beyond mere enforcement of constitutional principles. In effect, it risks restructuring a legislative design through executive directive — a step that may amount to executive overreach rather than lawful execution.
Sections 80 and 162 of the Constitution indeed establish foundational principles concerning custody and distribution of Federation revenues. However, constitutional provisions on revenue are not self-executing in granular operational detail. It is the responsibility of the National Assembly to enact legislation translating those principles into workable fiscal systems. Where Parliament has already spoken through statute, the Executive is bound to execute, not reinterpret or recalibrate the framework to suit policy objectives.
Reliance on Section 5 of the Constitution does not resolve this tension. Section 5 vests executive power in the President for the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and laws made by the National Assembly. It does not authorise modification of statutory revenue sequencing or corporate structures established by law. Execution ensures compliance; it does not permit substitution of executive discretion for legislative design.
Furthermore, the commercial restructuring of NNPC Ltd. under the PIA was intended to foster corporate autonomy and investor confidence by insulating operational decisions from direct political control. Any executive instrument that centralises remittance control in a manner inconsistent with that legislative restructuring risks undermining the very reforms designed to strengthen transparency and commercial discipline within the petroleum sector.
Transparency and fiscal accountability are legitimate policy objectives. However, even well-intentioned reforms must respect constitutional boundaries and the doctrine of separation of powers. Where statutory gaps or weaknesses are perceived, the appropriate remedy lies in legislative amendment through the National Assembly, not executive proclamation.
In sum, EO9 presents a significant constitutional question. The opposition maintains that safeguarding Federation revenue must not come at the expense of legislative authority or statutory coherence. Constitutional fidelity requires not only adherence to revenue principles, but also strict respect for the separation of powers that sustains Nigeria’s democratic order.
