News

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

Published

3 weeks 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

Akpabio: This isn’t time to probe military *I didn’t promise ticket for failed senators

Published

2 days ago

June 6, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Godswill Akpabio, Nigeria’s Senate President, on Friday, pushed back against reports quoting him as promising to retrieve tickets from winners of the All Progressives Congress (APC), in lieu of sitting senators, who failed at the party’s primaries recently.

He also spoke on the issue of the comprehensive probe called by Adams Oshiomhole, former Governor of Edo State, now Senator representing Edo North at the National Assembly, clarifying his position on the matte, which has since raised a lot of dust within the polity.

The twin issues, dominated the outcome of proceedings on Thursday, on the day the Senators returned after going on recess to participate in the party primaries that took place across board in Nigeria in line with the electoral outlay of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Akpabio, former Governor of Akwa Ibom State, former Minister of the Niger Delta and now Chairman of the National Assembly, who conveyed his position through Eseme Eyiboh, his spokesman, denied ever making such promise to his colleagues, as it went against the grain of democratic ethos, which he had vowed to uphold.

Regarding the probe of the military, Akpabio, in the statement, stressed the need not to distract the institution, but provide it with all the needed support, giving the parlous security situation in the country, its personnel had been battling relentless.

The statement read in full: “The attention of the Office of the President of the Senate has been drawn to misleading reports circulating in sections of the media suggesting that the President of the Senate has promised to secure senatorial tickets for senators who lost their party primaries.

“We must categorically assert that this report does not reflect the position of the President of the Senate. For the record, Senator Akpabio has neither made nor authorised to be made such promise.

“What the President of the Senate actually said, in the course of interacting with his colleagues, was to empathise with senators who were affected by the outcome of their primary elections.

“He assured them that the leadership of the All Progressives Congress, (APC), is actively working to address all issues arising from the primaries and that the final list of candidates will be released in due course in line with the party’s constitution and electoral guidelines.

“Senator Akpabio remains committed to party discipline, due process, and the internal mechanisms of the APC for resolving disputes. He will not interfere with the autonomous processes of the party or make commitments that are outside the purview of the National Assembly leadership.

“The office also notes another report quoting a distinguished Senator on the need for the Senate to probe the military over recent security incidents. While legislative oversight is a constitutional responsibility of the National Assembly, Senator Akpabio’s position is that this is not the opportune moment for a public probe of the Armed Forces.

“At a time when our troops are engaged on multiple fronts against terrorism, banditry and other threats to National Security, subjecting the military to a public legislative inquisition could undermine morale and operational focus.

“The Senate President believes strongly that support, collaboration and closed-door engagements with security agencies are more productive at this critical time. Oversight will be exercised responsibly, without creating distractions that embolden adversaries or divert attention from the urgent task of securing Nigeria.

“Senator Akpabio urges the media and the public to disregard sensational and inaccurate misrepresentation of his remarks and to always seek clarification from his office before publication.”

Share this story:

News

Our primaries were flawless – NDC *Denies imposition of candidates

Published

2 days ago

June 5, 2026

Whirlwindnews

No candidate was imposed neither was any member barred from participating in the process, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), said on Thursday, which defending the integrity of the exercise, which ended on May 29.

In a statement by Ikenna Enekweizu, National Secretary, party said that all aspirants were given a fair opportunity to participate in the democratic process, adding that the selection process was driven by consultation, consensus-building, and stakeholder engagement through established leadership structures across the country.

Stressing that its National Secretariat was never involved in the business of picking, choosing, or imposing candidates on any constituency or state, contrary to allegations that have emerged following the conclusion of the primaries, the statement added: “At no time has the NDC National Secretariat been involved in the business of picking, choosing, or imposing candidates on any constituency or state.

“Aspirants seeking elective positions were directed to engage with caucus leaders, stakeholders, and grassroots members in their respective states, who were responsible for consultations and recommendations based on local political realities. In the South-East geopolitical zone, our presidential candidate, Peter Obi, joined the party with an existing network of respected political leaders and elder statesmen who currently serve as caucus heads across the region.

“These include former governors and senior political figures such as Sam Egwu, Okwesilieze Nwodo, and Achike Udenwa, among others. The party explained that these leaders were tasked with conducting stakeholder consultations and helping build consensus around aspirants in their respective states.

“These leaders were entrusted with conducting stakeholder consultations, building consensus, and making recommendations to the party based on their understanding of the peculiar political dynamics in their respective states.

“Aspirants who disagreed with stakeholder recommendations were not excluded from the process but were allowed to test their popularity through grassroots primaries. This process was conducted without prejudice to the rights of any aspirant. Where aspirants disagreed with recommendations made by stakeholders or caucus leaders, they were free to test their popularity through the democratic process at the grassroots level, and this was duly accommodated,” the party said.

Addressing concerns raised by some aspirants following the primaries, the NDC acknowledged reports of individuals prematurely declaring themselves candidates as well as complaints regarding aspects of the process.

However, it maintained that such issues had been referred to the party’s appeal panel and leadership for resolution.

The statement also highlighted the party’s commitment to affirmative action and greater female participation in politics, noting that efforts had been made to encourage women to seek elective offices while also considering the interests of serving lawmakers.

Looking ahead, the NDC announced plans to begin a broad reconciliation process aimed at healing divisions and strengthening party unity after the conclusion of the primaries.

“As resolved at yesterday’s NEC meeting, we now look forward to the commencement of a comprehensive reconciliation process. We count on our esteemed caucus leaders, state chairmen, stakeholders, and party leaders to engage all aspirants and members in the interest of unity, cohesion, and the continued growth of our party.”

The party reiterated that its role throughout the nomination process was primarily to welcome new members and aspirants, reassure them of its commitment to fairness and transparency, and direct them to the appropriate caucus structures for participation in party affairs.

According to the NDC, the approach reflects its commitment to internal democracy, consultation, inclusiveness, and respect for established leadership structures as it continues preparations for future elections.

Share this story:

News

Hidden syndicate behind oil theft – Navy *Wants special court to try offenders

Published

2 days ago

June 5, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Idi Abbas, Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), on Friday, prayed for a legislation to establish a special court to try those caught in the business of stealing crude oil in Nigeria, saying the current general law was not too helpful in stemming the tide.

It was also a day he claimed that the powerful forces behind the syndicate had a way of projecting fronts while remaining behind the scene, which made it almost impossible to track them to face justice.

In fact, Abbas, a Vice Admiral, revealed that the operation was so perfect that those arrested at illegal refining sites were usually low-level operatives with little knowledge of the larger criminal network.

A guest on Sunrise Daily, a breakfast programme on Channels Television, the Naval Chief noted that many of those apprehended during operations are merely workers paid small sums, adding that such a complex structure of oil theft syndicates made it difficult to identify and prosecute the individuals who orchestrate the criminal enterprise.

“Most of the faces behind these thefts are not really known or are not the ones we always catch. The ones we get at most of the illegal refinery sites are just being given some paltry sum, while the big masquerades are the ones that make the real money. Prosecuting suspects is often complicated by the fact that many of those arrested have little or no information about the people directing the operations.

“In trying to prosecute some of these people that we get, some of them don’t even know who they are working for. So, the network is a very delicate one.

“But despite the challenges the Nigerian Navy and other security agencies are continually refining their strategies to counter the evolving tactics of oil thieves. As they are evolving strategies, we are also evolving new strategies. Like I keep saying, technology is the way forward. With that, we have been able to reduce the level of theft.”

Stating that the adoption of technology-driven surveillance, intelligence gathering and monitoring systems had significantly enhanced efforts to curb crude oil theft and protect critical national assets, he reaffirmed the commitment of the Nigerian Navy to sustaining operations against oil theft, stressing that collaboration among security agencies, stakeholders and host communities remains essential to safeguarding the nation’s oil resources.

The naval boss while assuring that Nigeria’s coastal and riverine communities are relatively safe, said the Nigerian Navy had made significant progress in reducing threats along the coast, particularly illegal oil-related activities and sea robbery.

“As it stands today, I can say that our coastal areas and the riverine areas are relatively safe. While crude oil theft and isolated cases of sea robbery remain areas of concern, the Navy has been largely successful in containing such activities through intensified surveillance and enforcement operations.

Hear him: “What we are contending with mostly there is the issue of crude oil theft and some pockets of sea robbery, which we are able to curtail. There is need for the establishment of a special court dedicated to prosecuting maritime crimes.

“This court will focus exclusively on cases involving crude oil theft and other maritime-related offences, helping to address delays associated with the conventional judicial process. The establishment of such a court would significantly accelerate the dispensation of justice and reduce the burden currently placed on the Navy in maintaining seized vessels and other exhibits pending the conclusion of lengthy court processes.

“If we have that in place, I believe the dispensation of justice will be done much faster and then ease the burden of keeping and maintaining some of the arrested vessels, which will be taken off from us because we spend a lot to maintain those vessels under our custody.”

Share this story: