News

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

Published

4 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

Democracy Day: Again, Tinubu snubs Nwosu, Option A4 creator in honour’s list

Published

18 hours ago

June 12, 2026

Whirlwindnews

For those believing that President Bola Tinubu’s exclusion of Humphrey Nwosu, the late Chairman of the defunct National Electoral Commission (NEC), was an error that would be corrected subsequently, their expectation came to naught on Friday, with his non-recognition once again.

In a surprise outing, the President failed once again to name the late Professor of Political Science as one of the Nigerians honoured, on the day Nigerians would be celebrating this year’s anniversary of June 12, designed to mark the historic 1993 presidential election, which has now been designated as Nigeria’s Democracy Day.

It was a day Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola (MKO), the candidate of the defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP), was elected President in a transition programme undertaken by the military government of then President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB).

Expectations are that because the Option A4 model used in achieving the outcome of the election, acknowledged as the freest and fairest election in Nigerian history, the late electoral commission’s boss, would feature prominently in the list of those to be honoured by the government.

But another list contained in the national broadcast by the President, suggested that the position of the treatment meted to the former NEC Chairman, reflected the thinking in the All Progressives Congress (APC), as the late President Muhammadu Buhari, Tinubu’s predecessor, under whom June 12 was given national recognition.

The list, populated mainly by names from the South West, which included both civilians and military personnel, did not capture the category of national honours to be bestowed on the recipients, as the government said further information would be released in due course.

Prominent among those recognized, was Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, a General and former Chief of Army Staff, Supreme Headquarters between 1976 and 1979, under the military regime of Olusegun Obasanjo, who died in Abakaliki Prison in 1997, where he was detained for allegedly participation in carrying out a coup against Sani Abacha, then Head of State.

Tinubu, said the completed Institute of Petroleum Studies, Kaduna, would now be known as General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua University of Geological Sciences and Engineering Technology, to honour the General, who later became a prominent figure in Nigerian politics, “for his vision of national partnership.”

Listing the other names, Tinubu said: “I am also pleased to announce national awards to the following Nigerians, who suffered persecution, endured indignities, exile, incarceration, and, at times, solitary confinement, so that we have democracy today.”

The recipients included: Ayoka Lawani, Tunde Fagbenle, Oladele Alake, Olatunji Bello, Louis Odion, Segun Babatope, Sam Omatseye, Ademola Osinubi, Bola Bolawole and the duo of Lade Bonuola, former Managing Director of The Guardian and Femi Kusa, former Editor of the Nigerian foremost newspaper.

Others, were: Debo Adeniran, Ayo Opadokun, Chief Ralph Obiora, Ose Osayande, Osa Director, Sylvester Odion-Akhaine, Arthur Nwankwo (Posthumous) and Osagie Obayuwana, all pro-democracy activists.

The list also included Joe Okei-Odumakin , Titus Mann, Joe Igbokwe, Richard Akinnola, Ben Charles-Obi (Posthumous), George Mbah Niran Malaolu, Ishola Williams, a retired Major-General, Femi Aborisade, Jenkins Alumona, Gbemiga Ogunleye, Muyiwa Adekeye, Babajide Kolade-Otitoju and Ike Okonta.

“We also recognise the soldier-democrats of the June 12 struggle: Major General MA Garba, Brigadier General Lawal Jaafaru Isa, Col Umar Farouk Ahmed; Col Sambo Dasuki;

Col Lawan Gwadabe; Brigadier Jonathan Ndam Temlong, Col Musa Shehu; Major General Chris Eze; Major General Harris Dzarma; Col Isa Jibrin; Maj. General Joseph Oshanupin; Col Olusegun Oloruntoba, Olugbede of Gbede Kingdom), Lieutenant Colonel Happy Kefas Bulus, Col J Okai;

Col Emmanuel Ndubueze; Lt Col Yakubu Muazu and Brigadier Yahaya Abubakar, the Current Etsu Nupe, who is already the holder of the CFR title.”

Share this story:

News

Democracy Day: Destination assured – Akpabio *Urges unity, citizen participation

Published

20 hours ago

June 12, 2026

Whirlwindnews

From Godswill Obot Akpabio, Senate President, came a definitive message to Nigerians on Friday – the future is bright, the road is clear and destination is assured under a strong, visionary and purposeful democratic leadership of President Bola Tinubu.

But he also raised a proviso – since democracy is participatory all citizens of the country, must get involved in providing the planks, which when nailed together, would enable the leaders fortify the platform for its growth, to enhance a robust, viable future.

These formed the fulcrum of his admonishment, as he joined other national leaders to celebrate Nigeria’s 27th anniversary of uninterrupted democracy, in which it not only broke the vice grip of military rule, but witnessed seven election circles to choose leaders at both national and other levels of government.

Akpabio, Chairman of the National Assembly, Nigeria’s lawmaking institution, was particular about the participation of the Nigerian youths in making his admonition come true, reminding them that they actually owned the future being fashioned today.

Conveying his message through Eseme Eyiboh, his spokesman the former Governor of Akwa Ibom State and former Minister of Niger Delta, also called on Nigerians to embrace unity, vigilance, and active participation in nation-building, commending them for showcasing resilience and support for democracy despite some low moments.

Noting that democratic experiment remained a testimony of endurance despite years of agitations, he said: “On behalf of the 10th National Assembly, I congratulate every Nigerian for the sustenance of democracy for close to three decades. Mistakes have been made in the course of this journey but we will surely get to the desired destination with your support.”

“Democracy should extend beyond the conduct of elections and be anchored on accountability, justice, compassion and service to the common good.”

Particularly for the Nigerian youths, he was emphatic about their active participation in the nation’s political process stressing that the younger generation forms the fulcrum of leadership succession.

Hear him: “As we commemorate June 12, I wish to encourage the youth not to sit on the fence but be active participants in the nation’s political activities. The youths constitute the fulcrum of those who will succeed us tomorrow.

“Let us therefore rededicate ourselves to the ideals of freedom, transparency and accountable government, social justice, and active citizen participation, especially the youths.”

The Senate President, also spoke the current parlous state of carnage in the country, appealing to Nigerians to unite with one another and cooperate with the government to tame “the monster that has befallen the nation.”

Assuring that Tinubu’s administration remained committed to ending the menace and securing the release of all persons in captivity, he said: “I urge every Nigerian to support the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in her efforts in fighting terrorism. We understand the pains you are going through but the government is not resting on its oars and hopefully we shall overcome this current challenge and all will be well with Nigeria.”

Share this story:

News

Dickson: Obi, a big asset to NDC, we’re working together … but!

Published

2 days ago

June 11, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Seriake Dickson, National Leader of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), on Wednesday showcased Peter Obi, its presidential candidate in the 2027 election, but gave a proviso – his importance would not be at the expense of the party.

A guest on Prime Time, a public affairs programme on ARISE NEWS Television, the former Governor of Bayelsa State, now Senator representing West at the National Assembly, maintained that the belief in some quarters that Obi’s entrance into the party was a favour was completely misplaced.

Instead, he argued that the opposite was the case, as it was the party that was doing its candidates a favour by giving them the opportunity to contest elective positions on its platform in the 2027 elections, a gesture that ought to be returned.

Hear him: “Don’t make it look like anyone is doing NDC a favour. No one is. Rather, the NDC and I and my colleagues are doing people a favour by granting our platform. If you are genuinely supporting Peter Obi and you are disparaging me, the leader, or the platform itself. That is nonsensical.”

Stressing that NDC had demonstrated confidence in Obi by adopting Obi as its sole presidential candidate and selecting a vice-presidential candidate without internal disputes, he said it was enough to earn its leadership the gratitude it deserved.

He added: “Nobody paid shishi. So, if a presidential candidate didn’t pay shishi to be made the sole presidential candidate and sole vice-presidential candidate, that same party cannot be the one saying that small people are underprivileged.

“I could have run. There’s no one more qualified than me. There’s no one more qualified than me to run for presidential candidate. None. There is no crisis within the NDC. Peter Obi is a cherished member of our party. On our own, we have made him a presidential candidate. Sole presidential candidate. And that counts for something. We are working well together. There’s no crisis.”

Share this story: