By Embassy- Oseni Momodu
History tends to favor those who speak up, not those who stay quiet.
The recent clash between Adams Oshiomhole and Godswill Akpabio has once again brought Nigeria’s legislative tensions into sharp focus, raising deeper questions about dissent, authority, and the role of elected representatives in a democracy.
The Basis of The Row
In every functioning democracy, the National Assembly or parliament is not merely a chamber for rubber-stamping decisions but a battleground of ideas, scrutiny, debate, and accountability. The unfolding disagreement between Senator Adams Oshiomhole and Senate President Godswill Akpabio underscores this principle, reminding Nigerians that dissent—however uncomfortable—is essential to governance.
At the heart of the dispute lies an amendment to Senate standing rules 20 and 24, affecting both current and incoming legislators in 2027.
Oshiomhole’s Stance
Oshiomhole’s resistance to the move signals more than personal disagreement; it reflects a broader concern about transparency and inclusivity in legislative processes. His stance echoes a long-standing democratic ethos reminding Nigerians legislative leadership must remain open to challenge.
Oshiomhole, known for his activist roots and confrontational political style, has consistently positioned himself as a voice for accountability, transparency, morality, due process and upholding rule of law rather than rule of might. His reported confrontation with Akpabio fits into a larger narrative of a politician unwilling to retreat in the face of institutional pressure. His message is clear: authority should not equate to unquestioned control.
Akpabio’s Gavel
On the other hand, Akpabio, as Senate President, carries the burden of maintaining order and cohesion within a complex legislative body. The office demands balancing competing interests, enforcing rules, and ensuring the Senate functions efficiently. However, such authority often invites scrutiny, especially when decisions appear to sideline consultation or dissenting voices as eloquently canvassed by Oshiomhole. Akpabio’s insistence to proceed on amendment process of the Senate standing rule despite Oshiomhole’s “point of order”, points to undemocratic practice of presiding officers undermining input of colleagues from voicing their dissenting opinions during legislative processes.
The utterances on “unruly” comment towards Oshiomhole deserves special emphasis. Oshiomhole is a distinguished Comrade serving 8 years as NLC president (1999-2007); Governor Edo State (2008-2016), APC National Chairman (2018-2020) and Senator of the Federal Republic (2023- present) Present. By all moral and leadership standards rating, Akpabio doesn’t level up with Oshiomhole. This every discerning Nigerian acknowledges. Is there any Senator as vibrant as Oshiomhole in the 10th Senate? Then, what justification does Akpabio premised his unguided comments? Akpabio Can’t Silence a Voice That Speaks to Power.
Akpabio’s Fear of Oshiomhole
Reports indicate Godswill Akpabio fear Senator Adams Oshiomhole’s (APC, Edo North) return to the Senate in 2027 may significantly alter current Senate leadership structure. For instance, according to the new rules, the Senate narrowed the scope of eligibility for senators-elect for principal and presiding positions to only two-term Senators who will be eligible to vie for any principal office. This implies only Assembly members from 9th Senate (2019-2023) and 10th Senate (2023-2027) are eligible effectively stripping incoming Senators of any viable chances to occupy sensitive positions in the forthcoming 11th Senate (2027-2031) commencing from June, 2027.
The Amendment
The new amendment has far reaching implications. With amended Orders 4 and 5 of Senate standing rules, Akpabio effectively barricade competent contenders by insisting that one of the “two consecutive terms” must immediately precede such nomination.
The amended Order 4 states: “Nomination of Senators to serve as Presiding Officers shall be in accordance with the ranking of Senators and shall be strictly adhered to.
“The Order of ranking are (i) Former President of the Senate; (ii) Former Deputy President of the Senate; (iii) Former Principal Officers of the Senate; (iv) Senators who had served at least one term of four years; (v) Senators who had been members of the House of Representatives; (vi). In the absence of (i) to (v), Senators elected into the Senate for the first time” shall suffice.
The Controversial Amended “Order 5”
Aside from the order of ranking used to narrow the window of eligibility among senators-elect for the presiding positions, the 10th Senate went further with an additional provision in Order 5 to knock off freshers in the contest which is the most controversial of all.
The controversial Order 5 states: “Any Senator shall not be eligible to contest for any Principal Office of the Senate unless he has served as a Senator for at least two consecutive terms immediately preceding nomination”. In effect, Senators who were not in the 9th and current 10th Senate are not eligible to vie for presiding officers’ positions in the 11th Senate.
Critiques React
Critiques belived amidst dwindling popularity, Akpabio’s intentions strategically targeted Senators Adams Oshiomhole, (APC, Edo North); Hope Uzodimma, (APC, Imo) and Kabiru Marafa, (APC) Zamfara Central; among others all of whom have chances of returning ticket to the 11th Senate in 2027.
The phrase “You can’t silence a voice that speaks to power” captures the essence of this political moment. It is not just about Oshiomhole, it is not about Uzodinma, and it is not about Marafa or Akpabio. It is about the enduring struggle between authority, transparency and accountability. When lawmakers challenge leadership, it may appear disruptive, but it is often a sign of democratic vitality rather than instability.
What Nigerians Should Know
For Nigerians observing this development, the episode serves as a reminder that democracy thrives on debate, not conformity. A legislature devoid of disagreement risks becoming ineffective, detached from the people it represents. Conversely, open confrontation, when rooted in principle, has potential to strengthen institutions by exposing weaknesses and forcing reforms.
Ultimately, the Oshiomhole-Akpabio row is more than a political skirmish; it is a reflection of Nigeria’s evolving democratic culture. It challenges both leaders and citizens to consider what kind of legislature they want—one defined by silence and compliance, or one energized by courage and accountability.
In the end, history tends to favor those who speak up, not those who stay quiet. And as this episode unfolds, one truth remains evident: voices that speak to power may be resisted, but they are rarely silenced.
By Embassy-Oseni Momodu; LFP, B.A, LL.B, BL- LLM (in view) writes from Abuja. Can be reached Osenixyz@gmail.com or 08120567606