In a move aimed at clarifying institutional roles and enhancing the efficiency of public financial oversight, a Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 has been introduced to change the designation of the Auditor-General of the Federation to Auditor-General of the Federal Government. This proposed amendment reflects an evolving understanding of Nigeria’s federal structure and is designed to eliminate ambiguity surrounding the functions and jurisdiction of the Auditor-General’s office.
The current title, Auditor-General of the Federation, has long been a subject of legal and administrative interpretation. Critics argue that the term “Federation” suggests a jurisdiction that spans both federal and state levels—an implication that is inconsistent with the constitutional limitations placed on the Auditor-General’s responsibilities.
Under Section 85 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), the Auditor-General is empowered to audit the accounts of the federal government and its agencies, not those of the states. However, the current title has sometimes led to confusion in intergovernmental relations and fiscal accountability mechanisms. By renaming the office to Auditor-General of the Federal Government, the bill seeks to bring clarity, precision, and alignment between the nomenclature and the actual constitutional role of the office.
The bill proposed by the deputy speaker of the house, Hon. Benjamin Kalu seeks to align the title of the Auditor-General with the constitutional scope of the office, which is limited to the federal level. Reduce institutional ambiguity and promote better understanding among stakeholders, including state governments, development partners, and the general public. It will also enhance transparency and accountability by reinforcing the functional boundaries of the Auditor-General’s office.
If passed, this amendment would provide key benefits such as clear terminology which will help delineate federal responsibilities from those of the states, thereby avoiding jurisdictional disputes. Administrative efficiency with better-defined roles to improve coordination among oversight institutions and reduce overlaps or conflicts in audit mandates. The change would also align Nigeria’s audit institution with global practices, where similar offices are clearly designated according to jurisdictional scope (e.g., “Comptroller General of the United States” or “Auditor General of Canada” for federal functions) amongst other benefits. The passage of this bill will likely trigger updates to relevant sections of the Constitution, particularly those under Chapter V, Part I, and other statutes that reference the Auditor-General. It may also require consequential amendments in existing financial management laws to ensure consistent usage of the new title across official documents and legal instruments.
Proponent argue that this amendment will lead to more effective public financial management by ensuring that accountability mechanisms are properly aligned with the actual structure of government. Clear designation of roles is critical in maintaining effective checks and balances, particularly in a federal system like Nigeria’s.
The name change is also expected to improve public understanding and trust. When citizens and institutions clearly understand the responsibilities and limitations of oversight bodies, the opportunity for manipulation, legal loopholes, or miscommunication is significantly reduced.
However not everyone is convinced, that a name change is necessary or sufficient to enhance accountability. Some critics argue that the move is cosmetic, noting that it does not address deeper structural issues facing the Office of the Auditor-General, such as funding limitations, political interference, and implementation of audit recommendations.
Others worry about the cost and effort required to amend the constitution, a process that requires two-thirds approval from both chambers of the National Assembly and ratification by at least 24 state Houses of Assembly. For a country with more pressing governance challenges, critics argue, this may not be the most strategic use of legislative capital.
There are also concerns about the possible misinterpretation of the name change as a dilution of federal authority, particularly in the eyes of the international community. Some stakeholders believe that “Auditor-General of the Federation” conveys a sense of unity and national oversight, even if technically inaccurate.
Moreover, the reform could serve as a precedent for reviewing other areas of public administration where terminological inconsistencies exist between titles and actual functions. By realigning titles with constitutional mandates, Nigeria can further institutionalize the principles of transparency, accountability, and rule of law.
Despite the debates, there is broad consensus that improving Nigeria’s public accountability systems is a critical national priority. Whether through symbolic reforms or substantive legislative overhauls, every effort to strengthen transparency and good governance deserves thoughtful consideration.
The proposed name change reflects an attempt to bring legal nomenclature in line with practical realities. While it may not solve all challenges associated with public sector auditing, it sets a foundation for more focused discussions on the powers, responsibilities, and support structures of audit institutions at both federal and state levels. It reflects a maturing governance framework where clarity and precision in institutional titles contribute to improved accountability and public confidence in oversight institutions.
