•Senate and Tinubu
The atmosphere inside Nigeria’s Senate Chamber on Thursday was unlike the familiar scenes that have defined much of the 10th National Assembly.
There was no debate over a presidential loan request. No consideration of a ministerial nominee. No discussion on another appropriation bill.
Instead, senators turned their attention to what many described as an emerging constitutional crisis — one that, if left unchecked, could fundamentally alter the delicate balance of power between the Executive and the Legislature, reports Sunday Independent.
Leading the charge was the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, Senator Sani Musa, who tabled a motion accusing several Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and Government-Owned Enterprises (GOEs) of persistently ignoring invitations issued by Senate committees.
To Musa, the issue was no longer about mere administrative nonchalance. It was about the authority of Parliament itself.
Presenting the motion, the Niger East senator reminded his colleagues that Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution empower the National Assembly to investigate the conduct of public institutions, expose corruption, inefficiency and waste, and ensure accountability in the management of public funds.
He noted that the Senate Committee on Finance routinely scrutinises the financial operations of government agencies, including their internally generated revenue, statutory remittances to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, operating surpluses and compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Act and other financial regulations.
Yet, despite repeated invitations, several agencies had simply refused to appear.
According to Musa, “This persistent non-compliance constitutes a direct affront to the constitutional authority of the Senate. It undermines legislative oversight, weakens transparency and accountability in the management of public resources and erodes the doctrine of checks and balances.”
He warned that if the trend was allowed to continue, it could encourage institutional impunity, frustrate the oversight responsibilities of the National Assembly, and weaken public confidence in democratic governance.
OBLIGATION TO HONOUR LEGISLATIVE SUMMONS
His motion sought far-reaching resolutions.
Among them were directives compelling all MDAs and government-owned enterprises to honour Senate invitations, a call on the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and supervising ministers to ensure compliance, and a warning that agencies that deliberately ignore legislative summons could face sanctions under the Constitution, the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and the Senate Standing Orders.
But it was the debate that followed that revealed the depth of concern within the Red Chamber.
First to lend his voice was Senator Mohammed Tahir Monguno, representing Borno North.
Describing the motion as “long overdue”, Monguno argued that the National Assembly must jealously guard its constitutional independence if Nigeria’s democracy is to remain healthy.
“The presidential system of government operates around the philosophical cornerstone of separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary,” he said.
He stressed that oversight was not a privilege granted by the Executive but a constitutional obligation imposed on the Legislature.
“So, when the Executive displays executive arrogance or executive rascality,” Monguno declared, “Parliament should stand up and jealously guard its constitutional powers.”
He cautioned that while cooperation between both arms of government was desirable in delivering dividends of democracy, such cooperation must never come at the expense of legislative independence.
His intervention echoed concerns that have quietly circulated within some Senate committees—that certain agency heads now treat parliamentary invitations as optional rather than binding constitutional obligations.
If Monguno defended the institution, Senator Abdul Ahmed Ningi challenged it to defend itself.
The Bauchi Central senator, one of the longest-serving legislators in the National Assembly, expressed disappointment that such a motion had become necessary under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration.
Interestingly, Ningi did not immediately blame the president.
Instead, he suggested that the president might not even be aware that some heads of agencies were routinely ignoring the National Assembly.
“I know very well that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had a fantastic relationship with the Legislature between 1999 and 2007,” he said, adding that the current situation may have developed without the President’s knowledge.
Then came perhaps the most powerful line of the day’s debate.
“Without oversight,” Ningi declared, “there is no Legislature.”
“This Parliament is not a department of the Executive. Legislators are elected by the people just like every other elected public officer. We have constitutional responsibilities that must be respected.”
READINESS TO WIELD THE BIG STICK
Rather than stopping at criticism, Ningi proposed a graduated response.
He urged Senate committees to issue final warnings to defaulting agencies. If they still refused to appear, the matter should be formally reported to President Tinubu.
Should the defiance continue, he argued, the National Assembly should consider one of its most potent constitutional powers—refusing to appropriate funds for agencies that consistently undermine legislative oversight.
He also turned the searchlight inward.
“We must remain senators,” he said. “We must not go begging. We must not go pleading. We must not allow ourselves to be induced. Oversight is our constitutional duty.”
His remarks drew attention to another dimension of the debate — the need for legislators themselves to protect the independence and integrity of Parliament.
By the time the motion was unanimously adopted, the Senate had sent one of its strongest institutional messages since the inauguration of the 10th National Assembly.
Yet outside the walls of the National Assembly, another narrative has continued to dominate public discourse.
For many Nigerians, this is the same Senate that has repeatedly been accused of acting as a “rubber stamp” for the Executive by approving major presidential requests with little visible resistance.
That contradiction raises a question that goes beyond Thursday’s debate.
Can a Parliament accused of being too close to the Executive genuinely reclaim its constitutional role as the nation’s foremost watchdog—or has the battle for legislative independence only just begun?
The question, therefore, is whether Thursday’s dramatic show of defiance by senators marks a genuine turning point or simply another moment of legislative rhetoric.
The “rubber stamp” label did not emerge in a vacuum. Since the inauguration of the 10th National Assembly in June 2023, the Senate has approved several high-profile requests from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu with remarkable speed. Annual budgets, supplementary appropriations, external borrowing plans, tax reform proposals and presidential appointments have all passed through the Red Chamber with minimal delays, reinforcing the perception among critics that the legislature has become overly accommodating of the Executive.
That perception has been amplified by opposition parties, civil society organisations and constitutional scholars who argue that legislative independence is measured not by the number of motions adopted on the floor but by the willingness of Parliament to subject executive proposals to rigorous scrutiny before granting approval.
Supporters of the Senate, however, reject that characterisation. They argue that disagreement should not be mistaken for effectiveness, just as cooperation should not be interpreted as submission. According to them, unnecessary confrontation between the Executive and Legislature has, in the past, slowed governance and delayed the implementation of critical national programmes.
Thursday’s debate nevertheless exposed an uncomfortable reality. If ministries, departments and agencies now feel sufficiently confident to ignore invitations from Senate committees, it raises questions about whether legislative oversight is gradually losing its practical force despite the constitutional powers available to Parliament.
That concern was at the heart of Senator Abdul Ahmed Ningi’s intervention when he reminded his colleagues that, “Without oversight, there is no Legislature.”
His warning was more than a defence of parliamentary privilege. It was a reminder that oversight remains one of the principal mechanisms through which Nigerians hold the Executive accountable for the management of public resources.
WATCHING THE DAYS AHEAD
The Senate’s resolution directing all MDAs and government-owned enterprises to honour committee invitations— and warning of possible sanctions against persistent defaulters — will now face its greatest test.
The true measure of the chamber’s resolve will not be the strength of its resolutions but its willingness to enforce them where necessary.
For many political observers, this may well become a defining moment for the 10th Senate. If the leadership follows through by compelling compliance and imposing sanctions where appropriate, it could begin to reshape the narrative that has followed the National Assembly since its inauguration.
If, however, the warnings fade without concrete action, the “rubber stamp” accusation will almost certainly gain renewed traction.
Ultimately, this is about more than the reputation of the Senate. It is about preserving the constitutional equilibrium between the Executive and the Legislature.
Democracy functions best when each arm of government respects the powers of the other while remaining accountable to the Nigerian people.
Whether the Senate emerges from this confrontation as a rising watchdog or remains burdened by the perception of being a rubber stamp will depend not on Thursday’s passionate speeches, but on what happens after the applause in the Red Chamber has faded.
