Politics
Much Ado About “Bow and Go”
O
By Ola Awoniyi
The screening of ministerial nominees by the Senate has come and gone but the dust it raised may take some time to settle. The announcement of ministerial nominations is always greeted with public excitement. And the case was not different this time round too, for obvious reasons. The President needs ministers to help him in running the affairs of the country. When the ministers are in place, it is generally believed the full complement of the Executive is formed for the business of governance to begin in earnest. This is why the nation was eager about the composition of the next Federal Executive Council. President Muhammadu Buhari eventually forwarded the names of his nominees to the Senate for screening and approval last week. The public anxiety continued until last week Tuesday when the list was unveiled at the Senate plenary by Senate President Ahmad Ibrahim Lawan.
The following day, the Senate began the screening after earlier deciding to postpone its recess for the exercise. The prompt commencement of the legislative process by the Senate under the leadership of Senator Lawan is remarkable. It showed the senators were willing to defer their holiday for what they considered a national assignment. And the way they went about it was a clear departure from the past wherein nominees were made to go through some undefined pre-screening rituals before being invited to the Red Chamber for formal screening.
Rather than applaud the Senate for that, a well-known parliamentary practice of giving recognition to former lawmakers, who by virtue of being in parliament before without abusing their integrity had fulfilled the condition for their appointment ab initio, started generating controversy. Eight nominees, out of the 43 on the list, took their turns on Day One. Uchechukwu Ogah, a nominee from Abia State, was the first to be invited into the chamber for screening. For almost one hour, the senators feasted on him. Then former Benue State Governor George Akume, who previously was also Minority Leader of the Senate, took his turn. Standing on his feet looking at Akume in his white babariga as he mounted the podium, the Deputy Senate President, Ovie Omo-Agege, cleared his throat and said: “I rose for only one purpose to ensure that tradition, that convention be respected in perpetuity so that no question here, other than ‘take a bow and go’ propagated by a few of our colleagues, be maintained.” The privilege was accorded Akume as a former two-term senator.
Akume’s case is interesting. Between 2007 and 2015, he not only had his seat well marked, as others, in the Senate, he also took part in the screening of nominees of the President more than twice. “I rise to support that he should be asked to take a bow and go, given his length of service in this chamber,” said Distinguished Senator Omo-Agege. It was obvious the DSP spoke the minds of his other colleagues. The President of the Senate then came point-blank on the issue: “Let me also remind us that it is a tradition here to give this privilege, this concession to senators who served in this chamber or in the House of Representatives or indeed the State Houses of Assembly. This tradition must continue despite the fact that some people do not understand it and we need to educate them.” It is a tradition inherited from previous Senate, which evidently underscores the importance the lawmakers attach to the institution of the parliament such that if one has discharged himself or herself creditably there, he would do even better in other areas notably in the executive branch.
Not knowing the import of that parliamentary practice and one of prerequisites for ministerial nomination, which equates it with the condition for qualification for membership of the House of Representatives, some Nigerians, among them commentators and columnists, queried the essence of the screening if all that a nominee would do at the Senate is to bow and take his leave. I admit that asking these former lawmakers some questions may refresh the memories of their new colleagues and indeed Nigerians about the character and competence they had earlier demonstrated in parliament. It may also be a needless exercise because the former lawmakers had abinitio met the condition for their nominations.
Ita Enang, Special Adviser on Senate Matters to President Buhari, who was formerly in the House of Representatives and Senate and indeed in charge of Rules and Business, first in the House and later in the Senate for several years, put this issue succinctly. According to him, the practice of “take a bow and go” is not new and not peculiar to the Nigerian Senate. “It is a tradition that started in the United Kingdom and the United States parliament and has become a parliamentary tradition everywhere.” Enang knows his onions and knows well the rules guiding confirmation hearings. If that practice deserves a review as some honestly canvass, I think the Senate will not hesitate do so accordingly. The point, however, is some of those who criticised the practice and erroneously called the upper chamber and its leadership all kinds of names would wish to be at the receiving end of that privilege if previously in parliament and now appeared on the ministerial list.
But before we go for tinkering with that established practice, it is important to know the intention of the law in assigning the all-important confirmation of ministers and other key appointments of the president to the Senate. In carrying out that task, the Nigerian Constitution asks the Senate to ensure the president complies with certain provisions. For ministerial nomination, Chapter 6 Part 1 Section 147 is very apposite here.
Subsection (2) of this section states: “Any appointment to the office of Minister of the Government of the Federation shall, if the nomination of any person to such office is confirmed by the Senate, be made by the President. Subsection (3): Any appointment under subsection (2) of this section by the President shall be in conformity with the provisions of Section 14 (3) of the Constitution;- provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one Minister from each State, who shall be an indigene of such State. Subsection (5): No person shall be appointed as a Minister of the Government of the Federation unless he is qualified for election as a member of the House of Representatives.”
I consider the scrupulous application of these criteria as the real purpose of the confirmation screening. The same critics of the just-concluded process would have accused the Senate of over-reaching itself if it had done more than prescribed by the law. It would have been more helpful though if the President had provided the Senate the portfolios of the would-be ministers in which case the Senate would assess their competence and appropriateness against the portfolios assigned them. Again, ministerial nomination is the prerogative of the President and the Constitution does not mandate him to assign portfolio to nominees forwarded to the Senate. As such no one can blame President Buhari.
This is where those who equate Senate screening to a job interview miss the point. For a job interview, the candidate knows what to prepare for and the interviewers the questions relevant to specific jobs. In this case, neither the nominees nor the Senators know the portfolios the president intends for the nominees. Unless they speculate based on the educational or professional experience of a nominee, all the senators can do with those they did not know or those that had not passed through their institution previously is ask general questions that may give little insight about them and how they may perform as ministers.
*Awoniyi is the Special Adviser on Media to the President of the Senate.

Politics
Kogi’s Quiet Shift: Reviewing Governor Ododo’s First 24 Months in Office
Kogi’s Quiet Shift: Reviewing Governor Ododo’s First 24 Months in Office
By Rowland Olonishuwa
On Tuesday, Kogi State paused to mark two years since Alhaji Ahmed Usman Ododo took the oath as Executive Governor. Across government circles, community halls, and everyday conversations, the anniversary was more than a date on the calendar; it was a milestone that invites both reflection and renewed optimism. A moment to look back at how far the state has travelled in just twenty-four months, and where it is heading next.
Since assuming office in January 2024, Ododo has steered the state through a period of measured consolidation, delivering strategic interventions across security, infrastructure, human capital, and economic revitalisation that are beginning to translate into real improvements for residents.
Governor Ododo stepped into office at a time when expectations were high, and confidence in public institutions needed rebuilding.
His response to these was not loud declarations, but steady consolidation, strengthening structures, restoring order in governance, and setting a clear direction. Over time, that calm approach has become his signature: leadership that listens first, plans carefully, and moves with purpose.
Security has remained the most urgent concern for Nigerians, and Kogi residents are no exceptions; the Ododo-led administration has treated it as such. From deploying surveillance drones to support intelligence operations to recruiting and integrating local hunters and vigilante personnel into formal security frameworks, the government has built a layered safety net.
For farmers returning to their fields, travellers moving along highways, and families in rural communities, the impact is simple and deeply personal: fewer fears, quicker response, and growing confidence that the government is present and concerned about the ordinary people.
Infrastructural development has followed the same practical logic. Roads have been rehabilitated, easing movement for traders and commuters. Budget priorities have shifted toward capital projects and human development, while revived facilities like the Confluence Rice Mill now provide farmers with real economic opportunity. For many households, this means better income prospects, stronger local trade, and renewed belief that development is no longer a distant promise.
Health and education are not left out; the Ododo-led administration has expanded free healthcare services and supported students through examination funding and institutional improvements.
Parents who once struggled with medical bills and school fees have felt relief. Young people preparing for their futures now see government investment not as abstract policy but as something that touches their daily lives.
Governance reforms, from civil service strengthening to new legislative frameworks, have quietly improved how government functions. Salaries are more predictable, public offices are more responsive, and local government structures are more coordinated. These may not always make headlines, but they shape how citizens experience leadership every day.
As the second year anniversary celebrations fade into routine today and Governor Ododo enters his third year in office, the true meaning of the anniversary will continue to linger on.
Two years may not have solved every challenge in the Confluence State -no government ever does, by the way- but they have set a tone of stability, responsiveness, and direction. The next phase will demand deeper impact, broader reach, and sustained security gains.
But for many in Kogi State, the story of the past twenty-four months is already clear: steady hands on the wheel, and a journey that is firmly underway.
Olonishuwa is the Editor-in-Chief of Newshubmag.com. He writes from Ilorin
Politics
Lagos Assembly Debunks Abuja House Rumour, Warns Against Election Season Propaganda
Lagos Assembly Debunks Abuja House Rumour, Warns Against Election Season Propaganda
The Lagos State House of Assembly has described as misleading and mischievous the widespread misinformation that it budgeted for the purchase of houses in Abuja for its members in the 2026 Appropriation Law.
This rebuttal is contained in a statement jointly signed by Hon. Stephen Ogundipe, Chairman, House Committee on Information, Strategy, and Security, and Hon. Sa’ad Olumoh, Chairman, House Committee on Economic Planning and Budget.
Describing the report as a deliberate and disturbing falsehood being peddled by patently ignorant people, the statement reads, “There is no provision whatsoever in the 2026 Budget for the purchase of houses in Abuja or anywhere else for members of the Lagos State House of Assembly. The report is a complete fabrication and a product of political mischief intended to misinform the public.
“The Lagos State House of Assembly does not operate in Abuja. Our constitutional responsibilities, constituencies, and legislative duties are entirely within Lagos State. It is, therefore, illogical, irrational, and irresponsible for anyone to suggest that legislators would appropriate public funds for personal housing outside their jurisdiction.”
The statement emphasised that the budget is already in the public domain and accessible for scrutiny by discerning Lagosians and Nigerians alike. It reiterated that the Lagos State Government operates a transparent budget that speaks to the needs of the people and the demands of a megalopolis.
“We view this rumour as part of a wider attempt at election-season propaganda, designed to erode public trust, sow discord, and malign democratic institutions.”
The chairmen further clarified that the 2026 capital expenditure of the House of Assembly is less than 0.04% of the total CAPEX of the state, which clearly demonstrates the culture of prudence, accountability, and fiscal responsibility that guides the legislature. However, they noted, “Historically, the House does not even access up to its approved budget in many fiscal years.”
They stressed that the Assembly remains fully committed to excellence, transparency, good governance, and the collective welfare of the people of Lagos State, in line with the objectives of the 2026 Budget of Shared Prosperity.
“We therefore challenge those behind this harebrained allegation to produce credible evidence or retract their statements forthwith. Failure to do so may attract appropriate legal actions.
“We urge Lagosians and the general public to disregard this baseless rumour and always verify information from official and credible sources.”
Politics
Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent
Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com
“Tinubu’s Government, the EFCC and the Strategic Undermining of Opposition Governors”.
In a striking indictment of Nigeria’s current political reality, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State declared that “you cannot speak truth to power in this dispensation”, directly accusing the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of intolerance for dissent and an erosion of democratic norms.
Makinde’s remarks (made during a public event in Ibadan on January 25, 2026) were more than a local governor’s lament. They crystallised a mounting national frustration: that Nigeria’s political landscape has tilted dangerously toward executive overreach, institutional capture and political engineering.
This narrative is not isolated. Across Nigeria, governors from opposition parties have defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in numbers unprecedented in the nation’s democratic history. Critics argue that these defections are not merely voluntary political choices, but part of a strategic pressure campaign leveraging federal power and institutions to fracture opposition influence.
At its centre lies Nigeria’s principal anti-graft agency – the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The EFCC: Anti-Graft Agency or Political Instrument? Founded to combat corruption, the EFCC’s constitutional mandate is to investigate and prosecute financial and economic crimes across public and private sectors. Its legal independence is enshrined in statute and it has historically pursued high-profile cases, including recovery of nearly $500 million in illicit assets in a single year, demonstrating its capacity for tackling corruption.
However, critics now claim that under the Tinubu administration, the EFCC’s prosecutorial power is being perceived (if not deployed) as a political instrument.
Opposition leaders, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and coalition parties such as the African Democratic Congress (ADC), have publicly accused the federal government of using anti-corruption agencies to intimidate opposition figures and governors, effectively pressuring them into aligning with the APC.
In a statement released in December 2025, opposition figures alleged that institutions such as the EFCC, the Nigerian Police and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission were being selectively wielded to weaken political competitors rather than combat financial crime impartially.
This is not merely rhetorical noise. The opposition’s grievances centre on several observable patterns:
Reopened or New Investigations Against Opposition Figures: The ADC pointed to recent abnormal reactivation of long-dormant cases or new inquiries into financial activities involving senior opposition politicians. These, they argue, often arise shortly before critical elections or political realignments.
Alleged Differential Treatment: According to opponents of the current administration, individuals who have defected to the APC appear less likely to face sustained legal scrutiny or prosecution in EFCC proceedings, even in cases of credible allegations of mismanagement.
Timing of Actions: The timing of certain high-profile investigations, emerging ahead of the 2027 general elections, reinforces perceptions that anti-graft measures are tailored to political cycles rather than legal merit.
The EFCC and Presidency have publicly denied these allegations, insisting that the commission operates independently and pursues corruption irrespective of political affiliation and that Nigeria’s democratic freedoms (including party choice and mobility) remain intact.
Yet the perception of bias, once systemic, is hard to erase, especially when political actors deploy powerful state machinery with strategic timing and selective intensity.
Defections and Power Realignment: A Democracy at Risk? Since 2023 and particularly through 2025, a remarkable number of state governors and senior political leaders have crossed over from opposition parties (notably the Peoples Democratic Party – PDP) to the APC. Though defections are normal in Nigeria’s fluid political system, the scale and speed in recent years are historically noteworthy, raising critical questions about underlying incentives.
The SaharaWeeklyNG reported Makinde’s comments within the broader context of a political climate where dissenting voices face greater obstacles than at any time in recent democratic memory.
Governors who remain in opposition find themselves squeezed between growing federal assertiveness and dwindling political capital. Some analysts argue that the combination of federal resource control, political appointments and influence over public agencies exerts tangible pressure on subnational leaders to align with the ruling party for political survival. This dynamic, they contend, undermines competitive party politics and weakens Nigeria’s multiparty democracy.
Speaking Truth to Power: What Makinde’s Critique Exposes. Governor Makinde’s core grievance (that it is increasingly difficult, perhaps perilous, to speak truth to power) resonates widely among civil society actors, political analysts and democratic advocates:
“YOU CANNOT SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER IN THIS DISPENSATION,” Makinde declared, specifically citing the government’s handling of contentious tax reform bills as an example where dissent was neither welcomed nor transparently debated.
Makinde’s critique reflects deeper structural concerns:
Exclusion of Key Stakeholders: Opposition leaders and state executives report being marginalised from meaningful consultation on national policies affecting federal-state relations, revenue sharing and fiscal reforms.
Institutional Intimidation: The perception that state politicians become targets of federal legal scrutiny after taking firm oppositional stances (real or perceived) discourages robust democratic debate.
Erosion of Opposition Space: A symbiotic effect of party defections and institutional pressure is a shrinking viable space for genuine political opposition, weakening checks and balances essential to democratic governance.
A respected political scientist, Dr. Aisha Bello of the University of Lagos, recently argued that “when opposition becomes fraught with state leverage instead of ideological competition, the very foundation of democratic contestation collapses,” adding that “a government that shies away from criticism risks inversion into autocracy.”
Another expert, Prof. Chinedu Eze, former dean of political studies at Ahmadu Bello University, warned that “selective use of anti-corruption agencies as political tools corrodes public trust and ultimately delegates justice into the hands of incumbents rather than independent courts.” These observations echo growing public skepticism.
The Way Forward: Strengthening Democracy and Institutions. Nigeria’s path forward depends on restoring confidence in democratic norms and institutional independence.
Transparent EFCC Processes: Civil society groups and legal scholars are advocating for enhanced transparency in anti-graft investigations, including clear prosecutorial thresholds and independent audits of case initiation and closures.
Judicial Oversight: Strengthening the judiciary’s capacity and independence is critical to ensuring that allegations of political weaponisation do not go unchecked. Courts must remain the ultimate arbiters of evidence and guilt.
Political Reforms: Advocates demand reforms to party financing, federal-state fiscal relations, and consultation mechanisms to reduce incentives for defections driven by federal resource leverage.
Public Engagement: A more informed and engaged civil society, anchored by independent media and civic education, must hold both government and opposition accountable for adherence to democratic principles.
Beyond The Present Moment.
Governor Makinde’s assertion that it is no longer tenable to “speak truth to power” under the current administration reflects unsettling trends in Nigeria’s evolving democratic landscape. While the EFCC and the Presidency maintain that anti-corruption efforts are independent and constitutionally grounded, opposition leaders (backed by political data and patterns of defections) argue that state power is being used to consolidate one-party dominance and undermine political pluralism.
At this critical juncture, Nigeria must choose between entrenching competitive democracy or sliding toward a political monopoly where dissent is subdued, institutions compromised, and power concentrated.
For Nigeria’s democratic ideals to survive (and thrive) its leaders and citizens must ensure that speaking truth to power remains not a perilous act of defiance but an honoured pillar of national life.
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoWhy Babangida’s Hilltop Home Became Nigeria’s Political “Mecca”
-
society6 months agoPower is a Loan, Not a Possession: The Sacred Duty of Planting People
-
Business6 months agoBatsumi Travel CEO Lisa Sebogodi Wins Prestigious Africa Travel 100 Women Award
-
news6 months agoTHE APPOINTMENT OF WASIU AYINDE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS AN AMBASSADOR SOUNDS EMBARRASSING






You must be logged in to post a comment Login