Opinion

Libel Accusation: Between Ikechukwu Iroha’s smartness and Kenneth Ahia’s brashness

Published

3 years ago

July 23, 2023

By Michael Nwabueze

As we countdown to the end of the 7 days given to Hon Ikechukwu Iroha by Kenneth Ahia, SAN to retract his essay titled “Payment of legal fees through contract award?” and pay N1bn in damages to compensate for the damages the said article was purported to have done to the reputation of Barr Ahia, let us consider facts of the issue.

In what is supposed to be a pre-action notice titled RE: MALICIOUS AND LIBELOUS PUBLICATION AGAINST KENNETH AHIA, SAN: DEMAND FOR APOLOGY AND DAMAGES OF ONE BILLION NAIRA, sent to (not served on) Ikechukwu Iroha via whatsapp, solicitors to Kenneth Ahia, SAN, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN & Co had claimed among other things that the publication had exposed Kenneth Ahia, SAN “to public ridicule, opprobrium and odium.”

Let me state categorically clear that unless Kenneth Ahia and his solicitors have other meanings to what makes up a libelous publication aside what is known to Law, their pursuit of a never-coming apology and a non-existent N1,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) is not only a wishful thinking but also a wild goose chase, and the earlier they retract, the more of their energy and resources they will save for themselves.

First, Ikechukwu was intelligent enough to only express his fundamental human right of freedom of expression in that essay in question by making postulations and asking questions. Even the title of the essay does not suggest any malice but a treatise in responsible citizenship seeking answers to issues that could lead to a compromise of government covenant with the people. As a question, the title, “Payment of legal fees through contract award?”, tried to create a basis for discussion and constructive argument for the good of society.

One of the statements highlighted by Kenneth Ahia, SAN in his notice of legal action to Hon. Ikechukwu Iroha says:

“In what seems like an attempt at organized heist, Gov Otti has been caught up in another scandal involving award of road project contracts in Aba…We have just received information that Mr Otti allegedly awarded all or most of these contracts to a company where his election petition tribunal lead counsel, Kenneth Ahia, SAN has major shareholding interest…”

Surely, nothing is libelous in the above statement as words/phrases like “seems”, “just received information” (the source of which the law protects Ikechukwu from not revealing as a public commentator), and “allegedly” all settle the fact that the essay was meant to raise and appraise critical occurrences including relationships between Otti and Ahia that could jeopardise transparent and accountable use of Abia’s resources.

With that, Ikechukwu could not have fallen foul of libel.

The other highlighted statement for which Ahia is threatening Ikechukwu with a libel suit goes thus:

“Are those jobs meant to defray the cost of legal representation at the tribunal as the SAN, who is a major shareholder of Solberg and a major stakeholder of Labour Party is in charge of all the Labour Party’s candidates’ legal matters in Abia?”

This is another fundamental question Ikechukwu asked in public interest, well deserving of answers and not a suit, as the people deserve to know if such relationships are capable of leading to a compromise in the deployment of state resources.

The last of the part of the essay for which Hon Ikechukwu Iroha was threatened with a lawsuit by Kenneth Ahia was the part that states that:

“The most scary implication of the above is that the cost of these jobs will likely be inflated to make up for the cost of these litigations, which is allegedly the main consideration in awarding the fraudulent jobs.”

Again, the above statement was a postulation to create room for further discussion and robust debate in a bid to check any iota of executive recklessness. With words/phrases like “will likely” and “allegedly” used, Ikechukwu’s true intentions of being an unbiased public commentator come to the fore. And rather than be vilified, he should be edified for his courage to speak up at a time it is unfashionable to go against the government of the day.

One of the fundamental defences against libel suit is public interest. Ikechukwu’s essay is self-sufficient in proving that it was written in the interest of the public which the law recognizes as “comments on public policies, matters of public interest, or executive decisions not constituting sedition, incitement or treason.” The content of that essay raised pertinent questions deserving closer scrutiny to ensure that our commonwealth is not shared among a circle of friends masquerading as redeemers.

Ikechukwu Iroha owes the public both social and moral duty/responsibility to make known the relationships existing between the governor of Abia State and Kenneth Ahia, SAN to the extent that such a relationship could cause a conflict of interest to the governor thereby causing damage to the sociopolitical and moral fabric of the state, or even cause the state some unnecessary financial losses preventable through such expositions.

It is, therefore, not only disingenuous but a terrible disservice to the state and her people to slam or threaten to slam a libel suit against a man with such a heavy burden of sociopolitical/moral duty to society. Such a threat is meant to gag the citizens and cow them into silence, and it is not going to be accepted. Anyone who does not wish to be scrutinized should keep away from Abia State government because we are more committed to scrutinizing them more than they are committed to browbeating the people into silence.

From the foregoing, that threat of a lawsuit against Hon Ikechukwu Iroha by Kenneth Ahia is patently, latently, and inherently defective. What Ahia has succeeded in achieving by going public with the pre-action notice is a fulfilment of his desire to expose Hon Iroha and his young family to all forms of security threats and breaches by exposing his private residence even up to his flat number. Such notices are by convention private and are only made public if someone is evading service after which alternative means of service can be deployed but only as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. At Ahai’s age and stage, and professional experience, one would have thought that he had overgrown such exuberance usually associated with fresh lawyers still learning the basic rudiments of their trade. We hereby wish to put Kenneth Ahia on notice that should anything untoward happen to Hon Ikechukwu Iroha and/or his young family, the world knows where to direct their suspicion and things will not be left lying low.

See you guys in court!

Michael Nwabueze writes from Aba

Share this story:

News

The man who saw tomorrow: Senator Akpabio and the uncommon politics of certainty

Published

6 days ago

May 20, 2026

Whirlwindnews

By Hon Eseme Eyiboh

Let us begin with a confession. There is something unsettling about a politician who no longer appears to struggle.

In the turbulent theatre of Nigerian politics, where noise is often mistaken for relevance, where primaries resemble wrestling contests and delegate management demands the instincts of a hostage negotiator, a man who walks in unopposed does not merely win. He transforms the entire contest into a rehearsal.

On Monday, May 18, 2026, at Methodist Primary School, Ukana, in Essien Udim Local Government Area, Senator Godswill Akpabio did exactly that. No contest. No drama. No nervous counting of votes. He simply emerged as the candidate of the All Progressives Congress for the Akwa Ibom North West Senatorial District without a single challenger.

While many politicians remain trapped in the exhausting rituals of horse trading, factional bargaining, and survival politics, Akpabio’s good works delivered something far rarer in Nigeria’s political environment than gold itself. Absolute consensus.

To the casual observer, an unopposed return may suggest the absence of competition. That would be a dangerously shallow interpretation.
Those familiar with the political phenomenon long associated with the “Uncommon Transformer” understand the distinction clearly. An unopposed ticket does not mean nobody desired to contest. Politics naturally attracts ambition the way light attracts insects. Power always generates interest. Influence always provokes aspiration.
What an unopposed return truly means is far more significant: potential challengers surveyed the landscape, studied the numbers, weighed the networks, measured the emotional connection between the man and the political structure around him, and quietly concluded that the road to victory simply did not exist.
There is a profound difference between lack of opposition and the collapse of viable opposition

Why is there no road to victory for others? Because what Akpabio has built in Akwa Ibom State in general and Akwa Ibom North West in particular is no longer merely a political structure. It is a fortress. Its walls are not made of concrete. They are made of cultivated loyalty. Enduring networks. Strategic generosity. And the unspoken understanding that confronting him politically is not simply difficult. It is often futile and absurd.

The atmosphere at the ward centre resembled less a political exercise and more a carnival of affirmation. Supporters, community leaders, women groups, youths, and party faithful gathered not to determine an outcome but to endorse a grace carrier already settled in the public imagination. The votes were counted without end. The votes were celebrated.

Here is the remarkable part.

The whispers surrounding Akpabio’s dominance do not come only from admirers. They come from seeming opponents too.

They do not fear his voice. They fear his results. They do not tremble at confrontation. They confront something more sobering: the recognition that within his political territory, the arithmetic has been solved with almost clinical precision.

While others are still assembling coalitions, Akpabio consolidated his long ago. While rivals continue calculating delegate figures, he has already moved to the next question: what happens after victory? How does political power translate into enduring relevance and measurable impact?

That is the distinction between a career politician and a political architect. One chases office. The other shapes the terrain on which the chase itself occurs.

Since assuming office as President of the 10th Senate, Akpabio has projected a measure of stability within the Red Chamber. That should not be understated.

The Nigerian Senate has earned a reputation for turbulence over the years. Leadership rebellions. Internal fractures. Floor dramas that generate headlines while weakening governance and social democratic structures. Against that backdrop, a Senate President capable of maintaining institutional stability without recurring crises becomes more than merely effective. He becomes uncommon.

His admirers see in him a politician who has consistently combined institutional authority with emotional loyalty from his base through the National to International arena. From Governor to Minister to Senate President, his rise is framed as the journey of a man who understood tomorrow before others arrived there. A politician deeply conscious of timing, alignment, and the delicate craft of converting social capital into durable influence and uncommon power (political capital).

This point matters enormously. Political capital is easy to squander. This point matters enormously. Political goodwill is easy to destroy. Many politicians exhaust it through arrogance, exclusion, or the endless pursuit of personal advantage. But Akpabio appears to understand something deeper about leadership: goodwill grows when people genuinely feel seen, valued, included, and carried along.
Over the years, he has cultivated relationships not merely through politics, but through accessibility, generosity of spirit, loyalty to associates, and an unusual ability to make people feel remembered even in the midst of high office. That is why his support structure often appears less like a coalition held together by convenience and more like a community bound by shared experience and enduring personal connection.
What some interpret merely as political dominance may actually be the long-term harvest of sustained human investment.
And perhaps that explains the ease with which the field gradually cleared around him. Not because opposition was forcibly silenced, but because many within the political environment saw little wisdom in disrupting a consensus built around continuity, stability, experience, and an existing relationship of trust.
His commitment to continue working closely with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Governor Umo Eno reinforces a broader message of continuity and strategic alignment. At a time when fragmentation remains the temptation of many ambitious actors, Senator Akpabio has chosen coordination. That is not a weakness. It is political arithmetic.

And this is where the conversation shifts from the present to the near future. The same political capital that secured his senatorial return without resistance is not a one-use currency. It accumulates. It compounds. The goodwill he has cultivated, the equilibrium he has maintained, and the pragmatic preference for results over rhetoric are not merely tools for another Senate term. They form the foundation of something larger and forthcoming.

The crystal ball is not required to observe the trajectory. A Senate President who secures his own return effortlessly, stabilises a chamber historically associated with instability, aligns himself with the centre of national power grid while maintaining grassroots legitimacy, is a Senate President who has solved one of Nigerian politics’ most difficult equations.

He has demonstrated to his colleagues that he can deliver. He has shown the party hierarchy that he can be trusted. He has reassured constituents that proximity to power has not disconnected him from them.

This combination is rarer than any single attribute standing alone. So when the 11th Senate eventually convenes and the question of leadership emerges once again, the conversation may prove shorter than many anticipate. Not because there will be no interested contenders. There always are. But because the arithmetic of loyalty, institutional experience, strategic alignment, and demonstrated political capacity will already have completed its quiet work.

Akpabio has not formally declared interest in leading the 11th Senate. He does not need to. The declaration already exists in the pattern of his movements, the stability of his stewardship, and the political field he has cleared without visible strain. It is simply the discipline of reading political signs as they present themselves* .

In the end, Nigerian politics rewards those who understand the people more deeply than those who merely master performance and noise.That is not sentimentality. It is a political reality.

A politician capable of delivering his constituency without violence, panic, or emergency intervention is a politician who understands something fundamental: power is never truly declared. It is demonstrated. And it is demonstrated most convincingly when nobody steps forward to challenge it.

On that Monday in Ukana, the drums rolled. Praises echoed across the gathering. And the political message arrived without ambiguity. In Akwa Ibom North West, the conversation has moved beyond opposition. What remains is an audience waiting to see the next chapter unfold without ceasing.

Senator Godswill Akpabio has once again reminded observers that in certain political spaces, dominance is not always loud.

Sometimes, it is simply complete. And in the intricate chessboard of Nigerian politics, where many players are still learning how the pieces move, that level of mastery remains rare, consequential, and deeply potent.

The man who saw tomorrow understood something else too. The loudest voice in the room is rarely the one that prevails.

The one that prevails is the one that no longer needs to shout because everybody already understands. And that is what Senator Godswill Akpabio has demonstrated that he is the man who saw tomorrow.

Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh mnipr is a former member and Spokesperson of the House of Representatives and currently Special Adviser, Media/Publicity and official Spokesperson to the President of the Senate

Share this story:

News

Senate rule amendment: Why the debate should be about institutional stability, not personalities

Published

1 week ago

May 18, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh

The controversy surrounding the recent amendment to the Senate Standing Rules has generated more heat than light. Unfortunately, much of the public conversation has been framed around personalities rather than principles, and emotions rather than institutional logic. Yet the real issue before the Senate is neither about Senator Godswill Akpabio nor Senator Adams Oshiomhole. It is about whether legislative institutions should evolve, strengthen themselves, and create continuity mechanisms that deepen parliamentary stability.

Every serious institution in the world periodically reviews its rules, procedures, and qualifications in response to emerging realities. Legislatures are not exempted from this process of institutional self-correction and growth. In fact, the refusal to review procedures in the face of experience is often a sign of stagnation, not democracy.

The recent amendment requiring senators seeking certain presiding and principal offices to possess a minimum level of legislative experience should therefore be viewed through the broader prism of institutional development rather than through narrow political calculations.

Parliamentary leadership is not merely ceremonial. The office of Senate President is one of the most sensitive and technically demanding constitutional offices in Nigeria. It requires not only political popularity but also deep familiarity with parliamentary traditions, legislative procedures, negotiation dynamics, committee systems, constitutional interpretation, and intergovernmental relations. Experience matters.

Around the world, mature legislatures often evolve unwritten and written traditions that favour institutional memory and legislative continuity. Such measures are not necessarily designed to exclude people; they are often intended to preserve stability, reduce avoidable turbulence, and ensure that those entrusted with managing highly sensitive parliamentary processes possess sufficient procedural grounding.

Critics who fear that experience requirements create a closed, self perpetuating oligarchy are not entirely without reason. Many legislatures have, at various points, used procedural thresholds to entrench incumbents rather than protect institutional wisdom. But the answer to that legitimate concern is not to abandon minimum standards altogether. It is to ensure that the bar is set at a reasonable, not prohibitive, level. A requirement of, say, one full term or demonstrated committee leadership is a safeguard against chaos, not a moat against renewal. The Senate must therefore commit to reviewing this threshold periodically, lest a tool of stability calcify into a ceiling on ambition.

Experience without openness becomes arrogance; openness without experience becomes amateurism. The amendment under scrutiny tilts toward the latter’s correction, but it must not be understood as a final word. What truly elevates an institution is not a single rule change but a culture that values both seasoned judgment and fresh perspective. That means pairing experience requirements with transparent mechanisms for advancement, seniority systems that reward competence, not mere longevity, and leadership elections that remain genuinely contested, not coronations.

Seen from this perspective, the amendment is neither unusual nor inherently anti democratic. Rather, it reflects the Senate’s attempt to refine its internal processes based on accumulated experience.

It is therefore inaccurate to reduce the issue to the suggestion that the amendment was crafted merely to “shrink competition” or protect personal interests. Institutions do not become stronger by permanently freezing their rules in time. They grow by learning from experience and adjusting procedures where necessary to protect efficiency, order, and continuity.

Even more problematic is the argument suggesting that because the new qualification threshold did not exist when Senator Godswill Akpabio emerged as Senate President, he should now resign if the new rule is adopted. Such reasoning fundamentally misunderstands one of the oldest principles of jurisprudence and democratic governance: laws are generally prospective, not retroactive.

A law or rule takes effect from the point of enactment forward unless expressly stated otherwise. The amendment cannot logically invalidate a mandate that was legitimately acquired under previously existing rules. Senator Akpabio contested and emerged as Senate President under the constitutional and procedural framework that existed at the time. To argue otherwise would amount to applying today’s standards to yesterday’s circumstances, which is neither legally sustainable nor institutionally rational.

Following that logic, every constitutional amendment would invalidate previous actions taken under earlier provisions, thereby throwing governance into perpetual instability.

What should matter now is whether the amendment serves the long term interest of the institution. That is the proper question, not whether it benefits or disadvantages any single individual in the immediate moment.

Interestingly, many of the world’s strongest democratic institutions evolved precisely through incremental procedural reforms. Rules governing tenure, committee leadership, succession, seniority, and qualification standards were not static from inception; they emerged through continuous refinement driven by practical governance realities.

It is also important to note that continuity in leadership structures is not necessarily an enemy of democracy. Stability can strengthen democracy when balanced with fairness and openness. A legislature perpetually trapped in leadership uncertainty, procedural inexperience, and internal volatility weakens not only itself but the democratic process as a whole.

Every rule amendment asks the same underlying question: whom does the institution trust to lead it? When a legislature decides that a Senate President should have served a minimum period as a legislator, it is making a quiet but profound statement about the nature of political authority. It is saying that raw popularity or executive favour is not enough, that the stewardship of a co equal branch requires earned familiarity with its rhythms and restraints. That is not elitism. It is institutional self respect. And in a democracy, institutions that do not respect themselves are unlikely to be respected by the public they serve.

This is why the current debate should rise above personal disagreements or chamber theatrics. Nigerians expect lawmakers to approach institutional reforms with intellectual honesty and statesmanship rather than framing every procedural amendment through the lens of political rivalry.

Senator Adams Oshiomhole is entitled to his views, as every senator is. Debate is healthy in democracy. Dissent is legitimate. However, the conversation should be anchored on whether the amendment strengthens the Senate as an enduring institution, not whether it immediately advances or obstructs the ambitions of specific politicians.

Ultimately, institutions outlive individuals. Senate Presidents will come and go. Senators will rise and fall. But the rules and traditions established today may shape legislative stability for decades to come.

That is why this matter deserves to be viewed not through the narrow window of self interest, but through the wider lens of institutional maturity, continuity, and the long term health of Nigeria’s parliamentary democracy.

Experience matters.

Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh, mnipr, is a former member and spokesperson of the House of Representatives and currently Special Adviser on Media/Publicity and Official Spokesperson to the President of the Senate.

Share this story:

News

Oshiomhole: Akpabio continues to project leadership rooted in partnership, not division

Published

2 weeks ago

May 11, 2026

Whirlwindnews

A recent video of Senator Adams Oshiomhole praising Senate President Godswill Obot Akpabio has once again drawn national attention to the leadership style of the 10th National Assembly.

In the widely circulated clip, Oshiomhole described Akpabio’s leadership as exceptional, noting that the Senate President has succeeded in attracting politicians from opposition parties into the APC without intimidation, coercion, or public hostility.

According to Oshiomhole, several political actors who were once fierce opponents of the ruling party are now joining the APC voluntarily because of the atmosphere of accommodation and engagement fostered by Akpabio. In his characteristic humorous style, Oshiomhole even suggested that Akpabio deserved a Guinness World Record for engineering such political realignments with remarkable ease.

The comments have naturally generated debate. Supporters of the Senate President see them as validation of Akpabio’s bridge-building capacity, his ability to reduce political tension, and his commitment to consensus-driven leadership. Critics, predictably, dismiss the remarks as routine political praise often associated with power dynamics. Yet Senator Adams Oshiomhole has long cultivated a reputation for speaking his mind regardless of political convenience, personal relationships, or prevailing sentiments. That is precisely why his remarks have attracted unusual attention within political circles.

However, beyond the noise, one fact remains undeniable: the leadership of the 10th Senate has emerged as one of the most discussed and consequential institutions since the inauguration of the current administration.

Since assuming office in June 2023, Akpabio has consistently projected himself as a leader committed to stability, inclusion, and institutional cooperation. In his inaugural address as Senate President, he described his emergence not as a personal triumph but as a collective victory for democracy and national unity. He pledged to lead with fairness, integrity, and teamwork while placing national interest above partisan considerations.

Recognizing that disagreement is natural in any democracy, he nevertheless argued that the Senate must rise above division and focus on its constitutional responsibilities of lawmaking, oversight, security, and economic reform.

That message resonated deeply at a time when Nigerians were already anxious about governance challenges, economic uncertainty, and widening political polarization.

Akpabio promised a Senate that would work constructively with the Executive without abandoning its constitutional duty as a check on power. He described the institution as “a Senate for all Nigerians,” while repeatedly emphasizing the ideals of “servant leadership” and “uncommon leadership” — phrases that have since become closely associated with his political identity.

This leadership approach has brought a measure of calm and stability to the Senate. Unlike previous assemblies that were often characterized by internal turmoil and prolonged confrontations with the Executive, the 10th Senate has maintained a functional and productive relationship with the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

For many political observers, such cooperation has become increasingly necessary in a period marked by inflationary pressures, insecurity, unemployment, and mounting debt obligations.

Several public figures have openly endorsed Akpabio’s leadership style. Governor Monday Okpebholo has praised his transformational and development-oriented approach, while Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu described him as visionary, patriotic, and instrumental in strengthening the National Assembly as an institution.

Akpabio has also received multiple recognitions for legislative integrity, institutional leadership, and democratic governance, further reinforcing his leadership credentials.

At the international level, Senator Allwell Heacho Onyesoh credited the Senate President with helping Nigeria regain visibility and relevance within the Inter-Parliamentary Union, describing it as a significant diplomatic achievement. To many observers, this reflects a leadership that is increasingly conscious of Nigeria’s image beyond domestic politics.

Akpabio has repeatedly emphasized inclusiveness as a governing philosophy. Across several public engagements, he has advocated greater opportunities for women, expanded support for persons living with disabilities, youth empowerment, innovation, and technology-driven growth.

He has consistently argued that Nigeria’s future depends largely on preparing young people for a knowledge-based economy while creating legislative frameworks that encourage entrepreneurship, technological advancement, and alternative revenue streams beyond oil dependency.

This philosophy is perhaps most visibly reflected in his home state of Akwa Ibom State, where the working relationship between Akpabio and Governor Umo Eno has significantly altered the state’s political atmosphere.

Both leaders have consistently promoted inclusive politics, helping to reduce tensions and foster a stronger sense of participation among political stakeholders and ordinary citizens alike. The result has been increased cooperation across party lines and broader support for developmental initiatives within the state.

Rather than encouraging rivalry or political fragmentation, Akpabio has openly supported Governor Eno’s developmental agenda, helping to de-escalate political tensions and strengthen public confidence in governance. For many residents, governance in Akwa Ibom now appears less like a contest for personal supremacy and more like a coordinated effort toward collective progress.

Akpabio’s support has also enhanced Akwa Ibom’s visibility at the federal level. As Senate President, his influence has helped attract greater national attention to the state, encouraging stronger collaboration between Akwa Ibom and the Federal Government on infrastructure, human capital development, and economic initiatives.

The political stability arising from this cooperation has equally reassured investors and development partners, who traditionally prefer predictable political environments before committing resources.

Governor Eno’s administration has benefited considerably from this atmosphere of stability. Policies relating to rural development, agriculture, job creation, and social welfare have enjoyed wider acceptance because political leaders within the state are no longer pulling in opposing directions.

Many political observers now regard this partnership as one of the most stable and constructive political relationships witnessed in Akwa Ibom State since its creation.

These developments align closely with President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda, which seeks to reposition the Nigerian economy through fiscal reforms, infrastructure development, investment attraction, and institutional restructuring.

The administration’s difficult but strategic decisions — including fuel subsidy removal, exchange rate reforms, and fiscal adjustments — have been defended by government officials as necessary foundations for long-term national recovery and growth, despite the temporary hardship they have imposed on citizens.

This reality makes the role of the National Assembly even more critical. The legislature must not only pass reform-oriented laws but also ensure rigorous oversight to guarantee that government policies ultimately translate into measurable benefits for ordinary Nigerians.

Akpabio has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the Senate will continue to protect national interest while supporting policies capable of driving economic recovery and sustainable development.

Even amid the growing commendations directed at him, Akpabio often redirects much of the credit to President Tinubu, presenting himself as part of a broader national team rather than as a solitary political force.

He has consistently praised the President’s efforts to restore investor confidence, rebuild public trust, and reposition Nigeria through the Renewed Hope Agenda.

He frequently references major national infrastructure projects such as the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway and the Lagos–Maiduguri corridor as evidence of long-term strategic planning aimed at reconnecting neglected regions and modernizing transportation infrastructure across the country.

Akpabio has equally highlighted the establishment of regional development commissions across Nigeria’s geopolitical zones as evidence of a deliberate effort to ensure inclusiveness and balanced national development. In a nation often challenged by ethnic and regional tensions, such messaging continues to resonate strongly.

On matters of security, the Senate President has remained publicly supportive of ongoing military operations against terrorism, insurgency, banditry, kidnapping, and other violent crimes. At a time when security remains one of the nation’s gravest concerns, his support reinforces the image of institutional cooperation between the legislature and the Executive.

One particularly notable aspect of his recent political messaging has been his reference to growing endorsements for President Tinubu ahead of the 2027 elections. According to Akpabio, such endorsements are not arbitrary political gestures but are rooted in what supporters perceive as visible governance outcomes.

Oshiomhole’s remarks also reveal an enduring reality in Nigerian politics: party strength is no longer measured solely by electoral victories but increasingly by the ability to attract influential figures from rival political platforms. Political defections often symbolize shifting national power dynamics, and Oshiomhole’s comments portray Akpabio as a leader capable of expanding political influence through persuasion rather than confrontation.

Still, Akpabio continues to present himself as a leader who prefers partnership over division. His speeches consistently emphasize dialogue, teamwork, inclusiveness, and national cohesion. He regularly reminds lawmakers that although they may have emerged through different political parties, they ultimately represent one nation and one people.

Whether one agrees with his politics or not, Akpabio has undeniably become one of the most visible, influential, and closely watched political figures in contemporary Nigeria. His ability to maintain cohesion within the Senate, sustain alignment with the presidency, and attract endorsements from major political actors has significantly consolidated his standing within the national political landscape.

For supporters, this continued momentum further reinforces the sobriquet that has followed him for years: the “Uncommon Transformer.”

Rt. Hon. Eseme Eyiboh, MNIPR

Special Adviser, Media and Publicity, and Official Spokesperson to the President of the Senate

Share this story: