News

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

Published

2 months 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

Tinubu orders probe into Facebook, X, Google, AI operation in Nigeria

Published

15 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Whirlwindnews

President Bola Tinubu has directed the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to investigate major technology companies and Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms operating in Nigeria over allegations of anti-competitive practices, unlawful exploitation of news content and other potentially unfair market conduct.

The investigation follows a joint petition submitted to the Presidency by the Nigerian Press Organisation (NPO), comprising the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association of Nigeria (NPAN), the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Broadcasting Organisations of Nigeria (BON), and the Guild of Corporate Online Publishers (GOCOP).

Announcing the development in a statement on Monday, the FCCPC said the directive was conveyed by the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris.

“The Federal Government’s position was communicated to the FCCPC in a letter signed by the Honourable Minister of Information and National Orientation, Alhaji Mohammed Idris. The investigation promises to open a new vista in Nigeria’s media history.

“In recent years, concerns have been raised by the Nigerian media industry over the growing impact of certain digital platforms on the sustainability of the country’s news ecosystem. Specifically, the NPO is increasingly uncomfortable with major technology companies including Meta, Alphabet, X (formerly Twitter), and certain generative AI platforms, citing practices capable of undermining fair competition, the commercial viability of Nigerian media organisations, and the legitimate rights of content creators and publishers,” the Commission stated.

Reacting to the directive, the Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the FCCPC, Mr. Tunji Bello, said the Commission would conduct an independent, transparent and evidence-based investigation.

“We recognise the strategic importance of the media to Nigeria’s democracy and the equally significant role of technology in driving innovation and economic growth. Our responsibility is to objectively determine the facts and ensure that competition within the digital ecosystem remains fair, transparent, and consistent with Nigerian law,” Bello said.

He stressed that the investigation should not be interpreted as a presumption of wrongdoing against any organisation, but as an opportunity to establish the facts through due process.

“Every party will be accorded a fair opportunity to present relevant information before any conclusions are reached. In specific terms, FCCPC will determine whether the practices in question constitute a breach of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018 or any other applicable law.

“In the past, FCCPC had investigated META and in 2025, won a landmark case against the tech giant for violations of FCCPA, including data breach, for which the tech giant was fined $220m. Meta has, however, appealed the fine,” the statement signed by Director of Corporate Affairs, Ondaje Ijagwu, added.

According to the FCCPC, the investigation will examine allegations of market dominance and potential anti-competitive conduct by the companies involved.

It will also probe claims of unauthorised extraction, scraping, ingestion or commercial use of copyrighted news articles, broadcast materials and other original journalistic content for developing and training Generative AI models.

Another key area of inquiry is the allegation that Nigerian news publishers have been denied meaningful opportunities to negotiate fair compensation or appropriate commercial arrangements for the use of their journalistic content.

The Commission noted that similar concerns had previously been raised in South Africa, where, following an investigation by the South African Competition Commission, it said Google agreed to compensate South African news media with R688 million ($40 million) annually for three to five years.

Share this story:

News

Gbajagate: It’s a war among thieves – Babachir *Remember N27.5billion is gone!

Published

15 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Nigerians, intent on getting to the root of the current fake agency scandal raving around the Presidency must start by ascertaining the whereabouts of the N27.5billion, said to have triggered off the entire saga.

Babachir Lawal, former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), who weighed in on the scandal surrounding the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), stressed on Monday night that Nigerians must not forget that the sharing formular regarding the amount, which is said to be the takeoff grant for the body, was the foundation of the dispute.

Recall that Adeniyi Adeyemi, Director General of the agency, after accusing Femi Gbajabiamila, Chief of Staff (CoS) to President Bola Tinubu, of collecting N400 million from him while awaiting a balance of N200million for facilitating his appointment, upped the ante by alleging that disagreement over the sharing formula of the grant triggered off the dispute.

Adeyemi had accused the CoS of demanding 48 per cent of the entire grant for himself, which he refused to part with, leading to the disagreement to the extent that the former Speaker of the House of Representatives now declaring war, which the Presidency relied on to declare the agency non-existence.

Babachir, a guest of Prime Time, a public affairs programme on ARISE NEWS Television, wondered why Nigerians were limiting themselves to the N1.3billion budgeted for the agency by the National Assembly in the 2026 appropriation without talking about the huger amount of N27.5billion.

Hear him: “Nigerians are talking about how 1.3 billion Naira was inserted into the budget. The man himself first said the quarrel came about because he refused to part with 48% of the 27-point-something billion Naira take-off grant. That money has been spent before this budget office was looking for the budget. Who gave him the money? It was not appropriated for; it’s not in any budget, that 27.5 billion Naira for which he says somebody demanded 48%. Who gave him the money? How did the process of generating the request for the release come up? How did it go through?

“We are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. Down there, before we got to here, 27.5 billion Naira had already been disbursed, according to him, as a take-off grant. How did that money get to him? It was not in the budget. So, this is what should frighten us. If such money can go to a fictitious organisation, we only now begin to see it when we are quarreling about how did it get into the budget. How did that money get to them?

“I think we all know that thieves and armed robbers always fight and they expose themselves during sharing. His complaint was that the Presidency was after him because somebody demanded 48 per cent of the take-off grant of 27.5 billion Naira. And so, somebody was not happy since he refused to part with that money.

“So, you see, that’s how we got to know this to start with. That is the reason why we got to know this on his side of the coin. It’s about the sharing of the 27.5 billion Naira. That’s why the thing came up. So, it didn’t work. It should have worked before that money left the government coffers into the account of the agency.

“It depends on the will of the President. I can use myself as an example. When there was this brouhaha between me and the Senate, remember I was suspended for some time while an investigation was going on. So now, that is best practice.

“It’s already out of their hands. I believe now the thing is on the President’s desk. It is a legislative oversight. This government – this National Assembly – has no interest in scrutinising the budget that comes before them. Most of the legislators just go in there to earn their salaries and collect allowances and go. They don’t scrutinise the budget line by line. We all know how this particular government works. There are some people that when they talk, nobody else has the authority to contravene

“It’s not a one-off thing. The issue of buying appointments is not new. People have been hearing it as rumors, as allegations, all over that. In this government, people buy appointments. We’ve heard it on the streets. And so this is not a new thing. I don’t know in our time. Nobody was buying appointments. No, it’s not to my knowledge. It’s not to my knowledge that people buy appointments. It probably could be, but I wouldn’t know that. It’s not part of our mandate to know such things.

“This government doesn’t take governance seriously. When things like this happen, Nigerians are not surprised. We are only interested in this because we have an opportunity to poke attacks on the government, not because we don’t know that these things happen in this government. It’s so porous.

“There are so many power centers that, you know, nobody does a budget. Nobody implements a budget. Ministers go to the office and sit down and read newspapers. Overheads, maybe if they are lucky, it comes one per quarter, at least paid quarterly. Some governments don’t even get overheads. Everybody’s redundant. But there’s money being appropriated and money being spent, but nobody sees where the money is going to. So that is part of the loopholes.

“Why are you interested in 27.5 billion Naira that had already been collected and spent? We are talking about an agency that we are claiming doesn’t exist. Maybe it exists, but it doesn’t have a legal framework for its existence. But it exists. And there are a lot of powerful people that make sure it exists in that form. Those are the people we need to expose. The Chief of Staff, in particular, is so powerful. The SGF is there, just reneging on his responsibilities. And nothing has happened now.”

Explaining official procedures for documenting new agencies, the former SGF, said: “If an agency is received, processed, and forwarded without somebody asking in the SGF’s office exactly who these people are, it means there’s a dereliction of duty on the side of the SGF.

“The act setting up that agency will sometimes say the position has to be advertised, interviewed, and shortlisted names sent to the president for approval. Some, you just write and he just approves. So, the SGF will go through the file, and in that process of due diligence, will be able to find out whether such an organisation exists. If there is no record for it in the SGF’s office, he will raise a red flag on it.

“What we used to do is if there’s a new agency that either the President or a minister proposes to handle some specific assignments or duties, he will first of all raise a memo to the president, who will approve that such be created. And then a memo will be sent to the Federal Executive Council on that particular agency, and we’ll debate it.

“Now, sometimes it will require some legislation to give that agency a legal mandate to operate. Some will just be within the presidential approval, and then the agency is created. Because really, you cannot appropriate funds to an agency that has not been legislated for.

“There has to be a legal basis for its existence. But first of all, it is the executive that raises such an agency, makes the proposal, debates it, and the Attorney General of the Federation will normally put an opinion on it. Then, if the Federal Executive Council approves, it’s sent to the legislature for legal establishment.

“It should not have arisen in the first place if it is not a legally approved agency. It should not exist. And the SGF would know that if it doesn’t exist on any basis, why is he forwarding a request? If it doesn’t exist, such will not happen in our time.

“I’m sure the President would assume that such an entity has gone through all the checks and balances before it is established, and therefore, not every communication from that agency needs to be verified. But as far as it is coming through the office of the SGF, due diligence must be done first before it is forwarded.

“This SGF has been sidelined in a lot of things from what we hear. He has been sidelined in a lot of things. It’s institutional compromise, because in this, I sense there’s quite a big racket going on somewhere along the line. If the agency was created by maybe one big man alone, and then he wants to go through the budget process, the budget office assigns the budget code according to the chart of accounts in GIFMIS. So, how did they manage to assign the budget code for this agency that does not exist? Who inserted it?

“Because first of all, the budget office issues a budget call circular to MDAs, and everybody starts to prepare his budget according to the budget line. They give you ceilings, and you prepare your budget and forward it to the budget office as an agency or ministry. Now, the Ministry of Budget and Planning would, in our time, call every MDA to come and defend its budget. Now, if you don’t exist, how did they recognise that you are a genuine entity? Who gave out the budget code and allowed their budget to pass?

“That’s what oversight is. The SGF should be able to know, because before it gets to the National Assembly, that budget goes through the SGF. “Unless there’s a dereliction of duty by the SGF’s office, the responsibility to flag that this is a fake agency would have come from them.”

Share this story:

News

Balogun: This isn’t football! *Blatter lampoons Infantino, FIFA over Trumps call

Published

2 days ago

July 6, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Sepp Blatter is unhappy with a situation where Donald Trump, would pick up his phone and call on the Federation of Internation Football Associations (FIFA) to change its established rules as has now emerged in the case of Folarin Balogun, a strike in the United States squad currently at the World Cup.

Balogun, a Nigerian-US citizen, is supposed to miss a match between his country and Belgium in the Round of 16, on Monday, following a red card he picked in the last encounter of the team between Bosnia and Herzegovina.

However, it has now been revealed that the intervention of the President of the United States, who reportedly called Gianni Infantino, current FIFA President to review Balogun’s automatic one-game suspension, saw to the world’s footballing regulator acquiescing by shifting the implementation of the ban by a year.

Railing on the development, which would now make the 25-year-old eligible to file out against Belgium in the last 16 of the World Cup later on Monday, Blatter, disgraced out of the FIFA Presidency in 2015, wrote on X: “Red cards are not overturned by political phone calls,” scandal-hit Blatter said on X.

“They are overturned by rules, evidence and independent bodies. If a US President intervenes with the FIFA President — and a player is suddenly cleared before a World Cup knockout match — the question is unavoidable: Quo vadis (Where are you going), FIFA?”

The 90-year-old former FIFA boss, a usual critic of Infantino, who once told Bild, German newspaper in February that the new FIFA had become a “dictator,” added: “Football must never become a playground for political power.”

Share this story: