The Senate on Thursday rescinded controversial amendments to its Standing Orders 2026 following concerns by lawmakers that some of the provisions were inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.
The reversal came barely days after the upper chamber amended portions of its rules, a move that had triggered controversy and sharp exchanges among senators.
It, however, drew sharp rebuke from the senator representing Edo North, Adams Oshiomhole, as he called on Senate President Godswill Akpabio to resign from office.
The amendments had come amid growing interest by outgoing governors and political heavyweights, many of whom are positioning to enter the Senate in 2027 to contest for top leadership roles such as Senate President and Deputy Senate President.
No fewer than 10 governors and several former governors are already angling to secure senatorial tickets, leveraging their influence over party structures to emerge as consensus candidates in their respective states.
Also, Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodimma, currently in his second term but whose tenure will end in January 2028, has obtained form for the Senate, with political analysts suggesting he may be angling for the Senate Presidency.
Moving the motion during plenary, Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, said a fresh legislative and constitutional review revealed that some provisions introduced under Order 2 Subsection 2 and Order 3 Subsection 1 could conflict with Section 52 of the Constitution.
He said, “The Senate observes that upon further legislative and constitutional review, certain provisions introduced under Order 2 Subsection 2 and Order 3 Subsection 1 may give rise to constitutional inconsistencies and unintended tensions with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, particularly Section 52 thereof.”
Bamidele explained that the Senate retained the parliamentary authority to revisit and reverse earlier decisions where necessary to safeguard the integrity of its proceedings.
He said the Senate “possesses the inherent parliamentary authority to revisit, rescind and recommit any matter previously decided upon in order to preserve the integrity of its proceedings and legislative framework.”
The chamber thereafter resolved to “rescind its earlier decisions relating to the amendments made to Order 2 Subsection 2 and Order 3 Subsection 1 of the Senate Standing Orders 2026.”
The motion was seconded by Enyinnaya Abaribe, the senator representing Abia South.
Deputy Senate President, Jibrin Barau, who presided over the session, described the motion as necessary to align the Senate rules with constitutional provisions.
“This is a very straightforward motion — it’s just for us to go in conformity with the Constitution,” Barau said.
“I thank the Leader for being observant and up to his game as the Leader of the Senate by making this observation. It is something that is very clear, and we don’t need any debate in respect of this.”
Oshiomhole, again, faulted the process that led to the earlier amendments, arguing that lawmakers acted in haste to satisfy vested interests.
“The way we rushed the rules because certain people wanted certain things concluded is one flaw in this process.
“That is just the point I want to make — that next time we should allow debate,” he said.
His comments sparked another round of exchanges on the floor, prompting Bamidele to invoke Rule 52(6) of the Senate Standing Orders against reopening issues already decided without a substantive motion.
“If His Excellency, Distinguished Senator Adams Aliyu Oshiomhole, had any problem with the decisions that were taken with respect to the amendment two days ago, what he was expected to do was to bring a substantive motion for rescission to be debated on the floor of this parliament,” the Senate Leader said.
Bamidele also lamented that the controversy generated by the amendments and the ensuing disagreements had overshadowed the Senate’s legislative activities.
“Regardless of what was done in this hallowed chamber yesterday, what became the news out of this hallowed chamber was that of unnecessary drama, and we are not going to allow this to continue,” he added.
Oshiomhole, who spoke to journalists after the plenary, described the amended rules as being rooted in what he called a “moral crisis,” insisting that the process and content of the changes raised fundamental questions about fairness, eligibility and leadership ethics in the Senate.
He argued that Akpabio, by the new framework being debated, no longer meets the moral and procedural threshold to continue presiding over the chamber.
He stated, “This rule has a serious moral crisis. The Senate president became the minority leader in his first term. He is now the one presiding and asking us to change those rules, even those who have done one term can’t even contest.
“As we speak today, the Senate president has not done eight years in office, even if you count the previous one plus the current one.
“So if we pass the rule that we must do eight consecutive years before you can become Senate president, it means he has to live by example by vacating because he is presiding without acquiring the necessary qualification.”
Drawing parallels with past leadership arrangements, Oshiomhole referenced former Senate President David Mark, warning against changing rules for political convenience after benefiting from them.
“More offensive to me is that as leaders who are products of by-laws, we must not make laws to perpetrate anyone. David Mark had the honour and privilege of serving as Senate president for eight years, not by playing by the rules.
“Those rules that enabled David Mark to preside for eight years, what happened to them? Why change them now? Because he fears that more senators will be eligible, which will broaden the competitive base. So he wants to soak it. If other people are afraid, I am not,” he added.
The Senate, however, dismissed reports linking the Presidency to its decision to reverse portions of the controversial amendments, insisting that the action was purely procedural and aimed at avoiding constitutional conflicts.
The clarification came hours after reports circulated in sections of the media alleging that the upper chamber had bowed to pressure from the Presidency to rescind aspects of the amended rules passed earlier in the week.
Speaking with journalists, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Adeniyi Adegbomire, said the decision to revert to parts of the old procedure followed internal legislative review and concerns raised by lawmakers over constitutional implications.
According to him, the issue under contention related to whether senators-elect must first be sworn in before participating in the election of Senate presiding officers.
He said, “One of the orders that was considered was about whether you should take your oath of alliance and membership before elections.
“The proposal that was passed, among others, on Tuesday was that you be sworn in before you can vote. It was just a procedural change.
“In the past, you didn’t have to be sworn in before you voted for the Senate President and Deputy Senate President, and now they said you must be sworn in first before the election.
“The issue of eligibility stays, and it is different from what we rescinded. We rescinded the order of oath-taking and eligibility to contest the election. This is for clarity.”
The Senate Standing Orders regulate legislative procedures and debates in the upper chamber, including the conduct of plenary sessions, motions, voting processes and disciplinary measures.
In the overturned amendment, the Senate, in the Revised Order 4, reinforced a strict hierarchy for the emergence of presiding officers, stating that “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,” it stated.
Beyond this ranking structure, the Senate introduced a more stringent provision in Order 5, effectively excluding first-time and non-consecutive lawmakers from contesting principal offices.
The amended rule 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.”
The implication is far-reaching: senators-elect who were not members of both the 9th and 10th National Assembly would be ineligible to vie for key leadership roles in the 11th Assembly.
Presiding offices in the Senate include the Senate President and Deputy Senate President, while principal offices comprise Senate Leader, Deputy Senate Leader, Chief Whip, Deputy Whip, Minority Leader, Deputy Minority Leader, Minority Whip and Deputy Minority Whip.
(Punch)
