Service and its reward in a political space have always been a subject of debate among analysts. A wave of financial scrutiny has hit the Association of Faculty of Arts Students (AFAS) and has not left out the Faculty Legislative Council under Rt. Hon. Oluwadunsin Adebiyi’s decision to spend ₦381,517.00 solely on refreshments during the current legislative session. The allocation, which covers a scheduled 10 sittings, has ignited a fiery debate over accountability, legislative entitlement, and fiscal discipline within the faculty, especially when contrasted with the ₦250,000.00 spent during the previous parliamentary session, which was as of the same last session considered extravagance.
While a disgruntled student electorate views the budget hike as an unnecessary luxury and an insensitive strain on student-contributed dues during a national economic downturn, the leadership of the house and committee handlers maintain that soaring market inflation has made the price of basic sustenance unavoidable.
The Mathematics of Deliberation Snacking: Breaking Down The FLC’S ₦381,517 Refreshment Wallet
For the bulk of the legislative year, the committee opted for a minimalist feeding strategy, setting aside six sittings for basic snacks. According to the document, the unit cost for a single meat pie stands at ₦600, while two bags of sachet water are allocated per sitting at ₦500 each.
For an estimated attendance of 25 honorables, a single snack sitting costs the faculty exactly ₦16,000. When multiplied across the six designated sittings, this snack pipeline drains a total of ₦96,000 from the refreshment purse, serving as the lowest operational expenditure on the food calendar.
Financial demands increase significantly during some deliberations. The committee has mapped out four full-food sittings, categorised as three ordinary sittings and one final valedictory sitting.
For the three ordinary food sittings, the budget introduces a strict per-item calculation for an attendance of 25 honorables. A single plate of food is priced at ₦1,800, broken down into four spoons of rice at ₦1,000, plantain at ₦200, meat at ₦400, and a takeaway pack at ₦200. This brings the primary food cost to ₦45,000 per sitting. After factoring in ₦4,000 for transport or packing nylons and ₦1,000 for sachet water, the total for a single ordinary food sitting hits ₦50,000. Across the three sittings, this sub-total accumulates to ₦150,000.
The single most expensive event on the legislative calendar is the Valedictory Sitting, where the budget expands to accommodate a full house of 35 honorables, alongside guests and incoming parliamentarians.
For the outgoing 35 honorables, the meal premium rises to ₦2,050 per plate, featuring an extra spoon of rice valued at ₦1,250, alongside the standard plantain, meat, and takeaway pack allocations. This brings the base meal cost for members to ₦71,750. The committee also factored in ₦7,000 for colored nylons, ₦1,500 for sachet water, and a major premium beverage allocation of ₦16,500 to purchase three packs of “Big Drinks,” pushing the internal valedictory sub-total to ₦96,750.
Concurrently, the committee budgeted ₦20,600 to cater to guests and the incoming legislative class during this final transition sitting. This external hospitality package comprises 24 meat pies at a total of ₦14,600, two packs of “Small Drinks” at ₦5,200, and ₦1,000 for sachet water. Combined, the valedictory session alone consumes a massive ₦117,350 in a single day.
When the ₦96,000 snack budget, the ₦150,000 ordinary food budget, and the combined ₦117,350 valedictory expenses are pooled together, the raw total for the House Service Committee’s operations sits at ₦363,350.
To safeguard against sudden market fluctuations and logistics emergencies, the FLC integrated a 5% miscellaneous margin amounting to exactly ₦18,167.50. This final inflationary buffer pushes the grand total to the approved sum of ₦381,517. With these exact figures now in the open, the student body is handed a clear look at the math behind the menu, shifting the debate from vague estimates to a literal discussion over the price of a spoonful of rice in the Faculty of Arts.
In comparison, the immediate past administration allocated ₦250,000.00 to cater for snacks across 4 sittings and full meals for 3 sittings.
Legislative Justification
When confronted via a WhatsApp correspondence regarding the fiscal justification for this upward adjustment, the leadership of the house deflected blame toward external economic pressures. The Speaker of the House, Rt. Hon. Oluwadunsin Adebiyi, directly noted, “The economy is no longer stable.”
Corroborating this stance, the House Service and Welfare Committee leadership asserted that the approved figure is already the product of an aggressive compromise, stating, “Subsequently, we were fair with the budget and a lot of cost cuts were made as well.” “The economic situation in our present era caused it. What was bought for a naira last session isn’t the same price as this session. Everyone knows that. There is inflation in prices, consumption and costs every single day.”
Parliamentary Duty vs Sacrifice
The continuation of sitting allowances, specifically in the form of meals has divided opinions along lines of operational empathy and strict financial resource management.
Proponents of the refreshment package argue that legislative service is a gruelling, uncompensated sacrifice that directly drains time otherwise meant for academic focus. With parliamentary sittings regularly stretching between 4 and 6 hours, defenders argue that starving representatives kills active engagement, forces members to exit sittings early, and results in rushed, poorly deliberated policies. One supportive student perspective noted, “Absolutely, they aren’t our slaves. Although they are to serve us, they aren’t supposed to starve while doing it… The money is worth it. We should take care of our honorables as they are serving us too.”
However, analytically minded students have fiercely countered this logic using basic market mathematics. Some members of the student body argue that even with an estimated parliamentary strength of 25 honorables, a prudent breakdown of bulk-purchased snacks and local catering should leave a significant financial surplus.
According to the student calculations, optimising the food expenses could easily save over ₦100,000.00 from the approved allocation.
A 5% Threshold and Precedent: A Risk of Student Apathy
Beyond the immediate cost of snacks and rice, the core institutional anxiety surrounding the ₦381,517 budget rests on the precedent it sets for future assemblies. Financial analysts within the student population suggest that internal governance expenses must be strictly tied to a fixed percentage of the association’s total revenue to prevent exploitation.
A recurring consensus among concerned AFASites dictates that internal legislative refreshments should remain strictly below 5% of the association’s total earnings. If the cost of feeding less than 50 parliamentary members approaches or exceeds 10% of what the entire student body contributes, it transitions from operational support into a blatant mismanagement of resources. But the rhetoric stays: how do we judge the percentage 4 weeks into resumption?
The long-term danger of this trend is structural. When a budget of this magnitude is normalised and passed by the FLC, subsequent legislative councils are highly likely to view it as a baseline standard, compounding the expenses in future sessions.
Furthermore, student political analysts warn that this trend breeds institutional cynicism. If the student populace realises that their hard-earned compulsory dues are being funnelled into internal executive and legislative comfort rather than tangible student welfare projects, it will inevitably trigger widespread political apathy, leading students to lose complete interest in the association and resist the payment of future dues.
The Constitutional Loophole
The underlying systemic flaw fueling the entire refreshment crisis is a distinct lack of constitutional boundaries. The AFAS Constitution only provides for an administrative budget for both the executive and legislative councils. And this is where the question is answered: Nigeria’s constitution has clear provisions for the salaries and allowances of legislators, with an independent body to regulate the exact amount and the disbursement of these funds separately from the legislative body itself. Currently, the AFAS Constitution contains no definitive, legally binding provision that caps or regulates permissible expenditures for sitting allowances or parliamentary refreshments within the faculty.
Because there is no rigid law governing this expenditure, each legislative council is handed total flexibility to draft, adjust, and approve its own parameters. To curb potential financial wastage in subsequent administrations, constitutional reform advocates argue that a specific financial cap must be permanently stipulated within the faculty’s supreme law.
The ₦381,517 refreshment budget has evolved into an ideological litmus test for the faculty: Is feeding the parliament an essential operational cost required to sustain democratic deliberation, or is it an unnecessary administrative indulgence funded by an exploited student populace?
Credit: AFAS Press
