Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has criticised President Bola Tinubu over the Federal Government’s allocation of ₦22.15 billion for the construction and renovation of 106 palaces belonging to traditional rulers, describing the expenditure as unconstitutional and a potential avenue for corruption.
In a statement issued on Thursday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, the former Vice President argued that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to fund projects relating to traditional institutions.
According to Atiku, the 1999 Constitution clearly outlines the responsibilities of the various tiers of government and does not assign the construction or renovation of palaces to the Federal Government.
“President Tinubu swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not to amend it through the Appropriation Act. Traditional institutions are matters within the constitutional competence of state and local governments. A federal budget cannot lawfully be used to assume responsibilities that the Constitution has assigned elsewhere,” he said.
The former Vice President questioned the constitutional basis for including the projects in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
“The question before Nigerians is straightforward. Under which provision of the Constitution is the Federal Government appropriating ₦22.15 billion from the Federation Account for the construction and renovation of 106 palaces? Which Constitution is President Tinubu operating?” he asked.
Atiku maintained that the Constitution makes only limited reference to traditional institutions, specifically under the Third Schedule, Part II, where states are permitted to establish Councils of Chiefs to advise governors on matters relating to chieftaincy and customary law.
He argued that beyond this advisory provision, responsibility for establishing, managing and funding traditional institutions rests entirely with state governments and their respective Houses of Assembly.
“The 1999 Constitution did not establish, fund or assign any executive responsibility over traditional institutions to the Federal Government. Indeed, its only reference to traditional institutions is in the Third Schedule, Part II, where it merely permits states to establish a Council of Chiefs to advise their governors on chieftaincy and customary law matters. Beyond this limited advisory role, the Constitution leaves the creation, administration and funding of traditional institutions to state governments and the laws enacted by their respective Houses of Assembly. President Tinubu cannot, by the instrument of an Appropriation Act, assume powers that the Constitution deliberately withheld from the Federal Government,” he stated.
Atiku further criticised the Federal Government for allegedly failing to disclose details of the projects, including the identities of the traditional rulers involved, the locations of the palaces and the communities expected to benefit.
He described the absence of such information as a serious transparency concern that raises suspicion over the legitimacy of the allocations.
According to him, the secrecy surrounding the expenditure creates the impression that some of the projects may exist only on paper and that the intended beneficiaries might never receive any benefit.
The former Vice President stressed that the annual budget should remain both a constitutional and moral document that reflects the priorities of government while remaining faithful to the provisions of the law.
“Our royal fathers deserve dignity and respect. They must not be used as unwilling instruments to legitimise opaque and constitutionally questionable budgetary allocations. If this administration truly respects the traditional institution, it should stop hiding behind it,” he said.
Atiku called on the Presidency, the Budget Office and all relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to immediately publish the complete details of the projects.
He demanded the release of the names of all 106 palaces, their locations, the amount allocated to each project, the constitutional basis for the expenditure and the procurement process through which the contracts would be awarded.
“The national treasury is not a Bourdillon-based private vault, and the Appropriation Act is not a license to suspend the Constitution. No government can claim to uphold the rule of law while appropriating public funds for projects it cannot constitutionally undertake and whose beneficiaries it refuses to identify,” he declared.
