The House of Representatives Committee on Science and Engineering has stepped down the consideration of the 2026 budget proposal of the National Centre for Technology Management (NACETEM).
The committee also resolved to expunge the agency’s budget from the national appropriation bill.
The committee also recommend the removal of the Director-General of the National Centre for Technology Management (NACETEM). Dr. Olushola Odusanya, for failing to appear before the panel to defend the proposal and for not submitting required documents for legislative scrutiny.
The decision was taken during the 2026 budget defence session held in Abuja.
Chairman of the committee, Mr. Inuwa Garba said that “if President Bola Tinubu could personally appear before the National Assembly to present the national budget, none of his appointees should consider themselves too important to honour an invitation from the legislature”.
He stressed that the committee would not tolerate any act perceived as disrespect to the Constitution, the Legislature, or democratic governance under any guise.
According to him, the committee’s action would serve as a deterrent to other government appointees who might contemplate similar conduct.
In a related development, the committee expressed dissatisfaction with the 2025 budget performance and the 2026 budget proposal of the Nigerian Council of Food Science and Technology (NiCFOST).
Lawmakers particularly frowned at the agency’s low Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), which stood at about N385,000 in 2024 and N285,860 in 2025.
The committee also queried the sharp increase in the agency’s overhead costs, which rose from N95.40 million in 2025 to N195.73 million in the 2026 proposal.
Responding, the Registrar of NiCFOST, Mrs. Veronica Nkechi-Eze, explained that the council’s only sources of revenue are registration fees and annual professional dues.
She said the council charges N5,000 for registration and N2,000 as professional dues from its approximately 10,000 members.
However, the registrar admitted she had no explanation for the significant rise in the overhead component, noting that the increase was not part of the proposals originally submitted to the Budget Office.
In his ruling, the committee chairman said the matter required further scrutiny, adding that the panel would engage the agency further before taking a final decision.