Senate Leader, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, in this interview speaks on matters affecting the 10th National Assembly and other pressing national issues. Sunday Aborisade brings excerpts.
Amid rising insecurity nationwide, why did the Senate refuse to investigate the defence and security spending?
The issue of insecurity is one about which no serious public official can pretend any longer. It is a major issue. People may argue about whether the situation is getting worse or better. For me, the more important question is not simply to categorise it one way or the other. Sometimes, things get worse before they get better. Let me explain it in the context of what happened on the floor of the Senate last week. The motion in question sought to establish a national committee to probe all financial releases made to the military in the prosecution of the war on banditry, kidnapping and terror.
We did not think that was the right approach, and we will not pretend otherwise. In the first instance, our military institutions are giving their best under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Let us remind ourselves that this is not conventional warfare. This same military faced Boko Haram terrorists in battle and dislodged them. There was a time when these terrorists had their flags flying over communities they had captured. Some local governments in this country had become no-go areas under their control. When they sought to advance further, our military confronted them, defeated them in battle and reclaimed those territories. At that point, rather than continue engaging our forces in open combat, the terrorists dissolved into cells and adopted guerrilla tactics.
For the first time in our nation’s history, a military trained for conventional warfare was suddenly required to fight an unconventional enemy. Nobody had envisaged this, neither the nation nor the military itself. But they did not give up. They have sustained the fight at great sacrifice, especially our officers and soldiers who are losing their lives, families of the victims who have been killed or kidnapped as well as a government that must manage highly sensitive information while remaining accountable to the public.
When that motion came before the Senate, the question before us was whether we wanted to put our own military on trial in the middle of a war. That would have been the most unpatriotic course of action — out of order, out of tune, and a dangerous mismanagement of a sensitive national security situation. It is an established principle that you do not interrogate the cost of waging a war until the war is over. You do not pause in the middle of a conflict to ask: how much have I given you, how much have you spent, and how did you spend it? Priorities must be clearly understood, and our priority at this moment cannot be to probe our military. To be clear, we were not suggesting that the military should spend money without accountability. We have standing committees – Army, Air Force, Navy and Defence that are specifically charged with oversighting our Armed Forces. They approve budgets, conduct oversight, and carry out both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. Members of the committees have travelled with service chiefs abroad to inspect military equipment procured on behalf of Nigeria, because much of what we are using to prosecute this war is off-the-shelf. Some items are ordered today, but may not be manufactured until the next three months. Before shipment, security consultants and committee members from both chambers conduct physical inspections. The same rigour applies on arrival at our ports and airports. We cannot, as a nation, announce every drone that arrives or detail its specifications and operational range.
You cannot wage a war that way. A great deal is happening that cannot be debated openly on the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives. Given that reality, agreeing to a motion to publicly probe the military would have been a dangerous diversion, and that is not where Nigeria’s focus should be today. What I can tell the public is that we are making significant progress by the grace of God. I know that is difficult for many Nigerians to accept, especially those living through the agony of this crisis. But the increased tempo of attacks in various parts of the country is, in part, an expression of the frustration of our enemies. They are taking casualties at a scale they have not experienced before. Much is happening — through our own military operations and through the fruits of international counter-terrorism collaboration. We are fighting guerrillas who, for every member they lose, feel compelled to strike in retaliation — partly to wage a psychological war, partly to erode public confidence in the military, and partly to turn Nigerians against their own armed forces. We must not allow their plan to come through. We must not allow political opponents who seek to weaponise this situation to deter us from sustaining the ongoing onslaught against terrorism.
Some senators lost their return tickets recently. At the plenary last week, the President of the Senate claimed that the leadership had been handling their cases. Does the mandate of the leadership extend to such an intervention?
I will address this directly. During our plenary, we moved briefly into a closed-door session before returning to the plenary for the President of the Senate to report progress. In both settings, it was entirely normal for the President of the Senate, on behalf of the leadership, to congratulate those who emerged as winners in the primary elections. It is equally normal for the leadership to take note of complaints from senators and members of the House of Representatives regarding irregularities they may have witnessed during the primaries. The best we can do is to engage the party’s leadership structure — the National Working Committee, the governors of the relevant states, and where necessary, Mr. President as the party’s national leader — to reflect those concerns. For my part, by the grace of God and the support of my constituents in Ekiti Central, no one ran against me. I was returned unopposed. The same was true of the President of the Senate and the Deputy President of the Senate. So, this was not a personal matter for any of us in leadership.
It was part of what we owe our colleagues. In truth, some members were calling us even as their primary elections were underway. Some sent written petitions to the party and copied the leadership. There was no way we could have convened the first sitting of the Senate and pretended that these concerns did not exist. The statement of the President of the Senate was therefore appropriate — and entirely consistent with parliamentary practice and procedure globally. The party’s appeal committee has since sat, heard from all complainants and relevant stakeholders, and made its recommendations to the National Working Committee. That process will determine the final outcome. Whatever the President of the Senate said, he was not speaking personally — he was speaking on behalf of the leadership, and I have now explained the basis on which we acted.
How do you respond to the characterisation of the National Assembly as a rubber stamp?
We have worked collaboratively with the executive arm of government over the past three years. Some of our colleagues were labelled rubber stamps for doing so.
But let me be clear: we knew we were not a rubber stamp Senate. The difference between the 10th National Assembly and previous assemblies is that we chose to resolve our disagreements privately rather than publicly. We held numerous meetings with the National Working Committee of the APC, with Mr. President, with ministers, Chairman, Nigeria Revenue Service, and with relevant agencies — meetings during which we raised objections, pushed back, and reached agreement — before bills ever came to the floor. This happened with the four critical tax reform bills, among others.
There were occasions when names submitted for screening were returned to Mr. President before we even read the covering letters into the record, because we identified eligibility issues or concerns that would have made confirmation impossible. The president would direct that the list be revised, a corrected list would be resubmitted and the matter would proceed without public controversy. If we had engaged in that process and then staged a dramatic rejection on the floor, what would that have served — other than satisfying those who equate noise with independence? We were not doing this to impress anyone or to avoid criticism.
We were convinced it was the right approach for a period of unusual national challenge. Our position has always been that genuine collaboration between the arms of government — where it serves the overriding public interest — is not weakness. It is statesmanship.
Does the leadership of the Senate have the capacity to speak for senators across party lines?
We have that standing, and I will explain why. We always say — and mean — that when you enter the hallowed chamber of the Senate, you remove whatever party uniform you wore to get there. You enter as a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
So much has been said about the establishment of state police. But the process has not started despite the rising spate of insecurity. What are the reasons for the delay?
A – Our position on state police is very clear. We stand with Nigerians on this issue. A cross-section of the public has made it abundantly clear that there cannot be a better time to establish state police than now — and that is where we stand. Our role as the elected representatives of the people is to translate this popular desire into law. You can sing about it, debate it, or wish for it — but until it is legislated, it does not happen.
That is where Parliament comes in. We have reached a firm conclusion that we will pass the constitutional amendment to make provision for state police. I can tell you today that this will come to fruition. There is no reason for further delay.
I should also speak to the work that has gone into this. There have been a series of intensive meetings involving the National Assembly led by Chairman, Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, Senator Barau I. Jibrin and Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, Rt Hon. Benjamin Kalu.
The meetings have involved the Office of the Attorney-General, the Chief of Staff to the President, the Inspector General of Police, and other key stakeholders. The consultations over the past week alone have been substantial. That is the basis of my confidence in speaking to you today. What we have resolved to do is to isolate the state police amendment from the broader constitutional review agenda so that we can vote on it as quickly as possible and transmit the bill to the 36 state Houses of Assembly. As you know, we require the approval of two-thirds of the state assemblies before the bill can proceed to Mr. President for assent. The President is fully aligned with us on this matter. The majority of our governors are also in support, and their respective assemblies are waiting for the bill to arrive.
It has been three or four months since a bill seeking amendment to the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 was introduced to accommodate stiffer penalties for kidnappers, their financiers, informants and anyone who knowingly supports kidnapping operations. Why has the Senate not concluded the amendment process?
The amendment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 is going through legislative process. It is something that means a great deal to us. We have done what was required. The parliament and executive are in complete agreement that it is the right thing to do. You will have noted some of the recent pronouncements from our courts, independently handing down death sentences to individuals convicted of kidnapping. Nothing less is appropriate.
I sponsored the bill in the interest of peace and stability of Nigeria. Let me strongly assure Nigerians that the process will be concluded. We have passed some of the bills that will further guarantee the stability of our fatherland. Some, currently in progress, require accompanying constitutional amendments. We have compiled a list of such bills so that we can proceed simultaneously. However, as I said, we are deliberately isolating the state police amendment to ensure it is dealt with immediately. We will return to the other critical constitutional matters including the bill on special seats for women in the legislature, and several other reforms needed to advance our democracy. We still have until June 2027, and we will address all of them in due course.
Can you highlight parliamentary interventions that the National Assembly has promoted to cushion the adverse effects of economic reforms by this administration?
A – Part of what we have done and will continue to intensify is to respond to our constitutional mandate under Section 14(2). This entails us to make laws that support the security and welfare of Nigerians as the primary purpose of government. Looking at the laws we have passed and which have since received presidential assent, you will see that several have led to the creation of agencies and frameworks designed to address the welfare of ordinary Nigerians. For instance, the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) was created by an Act of the National Assembly. It aims at making tertiary education accessible and available to all students regardless of their backgrounds. We equally established the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development through legislation. It is designed to address not only the economic dimension to farming and animal husbandry, but also the security and social tensions that have arisen from the longstanding conflict between farmers and herders. Through the tax reform bills, we addressed the problem of double taxation and made life more bearable for Nigerians in the lower income brackets. For instance, anyone earning at or below the new minimum wage — roughly N80,000 — will pay no income tax at all. The significance of this reform becomes clear when you consider the sheer number of Nigerians who fall within this income bracket. Similarly, companies with annual turnover below N50 million are now able to operate without the burden of corporate taxation. Again, that bracket captures a very large proportion of Nigerian businesses. These are not cosmetic interventions. They are structural reforms aimed at cushioning the effects of the broader economic policies of this administration.
Open grazing is still an issue of national concern given its grave consequences on the economy and security of Nigeria. What measures are before the National Assembly to decisively address this issue?
A – This is a question that reflects the concern of a great many Nigerians, and it deserves a candid answer. The government is putting measures in place. However, the nature of this issue demands more than a policy announcement or a piece of legislation. It requires extensive consultation with all stakeholders. Open grazing is an emotive issue. It involves deeply held convictions about land rights, rights of passage, and centuries-old traditions. On the one side, you have herders whose forebears have traversed certain routes for generations. On the other, you have farmers whose livelihoods are destroyed when cattle move through their fields. Both sides feel their rights are being violated. The government’s task is to resolve this issue not just through the force of law, but through genuine engagement that brings all parties along. That distinction between governing through dialogue and governing through decree is precisely what separates a democratic government from a military regime. It takes longer to resolve such sensitive issues. It may seem as though we were not doing anything from the outside. But things are happening. I believe the Ministry of Livestock Development will soon be in a position to present its progress report to the public. The difference it makes, when the right framework is finally established, will be significant.
The Senate Standing Orders, 2026 has limited the requirement for contesting the Senate Presidency to leadership only. What informed the decision of the Senate?
What the Senate has done is entirely consistent with global parliamentary practice, procedure, conventions, and traditions. It is what is known as ranking — a principle that governs not merely seating arrangements, but the priority of participation in legislative proceedings, including who is recognised to speak when multiple senators seek the floor simultaneously. The principle is straightforward: a senator serving a second or third term is assumed to have greater familiarity with the rules, greater experience of parliamentary procedure, and a higher responsibility to guide and stabilise the process. This assumption underpins the parliamentary ranking system globally.
The longer one serves in a legislative chamber, the more one is expected to understand its workings and to help steward its proceedings. Now, applying the principle to the specific amendment in question, you cannot simply walk in as a first-time member to become the President of the United States Senate or Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. The fact that such a rule did not exist in our Senate three years ago is not an argument against our decision to introduce the global best practice in parliamentary governance. The law grows. The function of the National Assembly is precisely to amend and improve the rules under which it operates. The dress that fit us in 2023 may not fit us today, and Parliament is the tailor.
Is this decision designed to return Senator Godswill Akpabio as the President of the Senate?
You cannot make a law that is targeted at an individual. Such a law cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. What you can do is to make a law that is durable, principled, and consistent with democratic best practice. That is exactly what we have done. I was not on the floor of the Senate when aspects of this amendment were passed. But on the very next legislative day that I returned, I brought a substantive motion to draw attention of the Senate to provisions within the amendment, which were inconsistent with the Constitution in my view.
Under the 1999 Constitution, any Act of the National Assembly that conflicts with its provisions is null and void. The Senate considered my motion and nullified those offending provisions. One of those provisions concerned the requirement that a senator must first be sworn in before contesting to lead the Senate. The intent is clear. No one should use the Senate Presidency as a fallback option, whether entering the chamber only to contest for leadership or retreating to their previous office if unsuccessful in his or her quest for the leadership position. The law is plain on this: the moment you are sworn in as a member of the National Assembly, you automatically relinquish any executive office you previously held.
The investigation of the Senate into the Missing Police Firearms has not been concluded. This applies to other adhoc committees set up by the Senate to investigate specific issues of national interests including ways and meals. Why are these probes inconclusive?
The Public Accounts Committee is a constitutional body. Unlike most other Senate committees, the leadership does not establish it by discretion. In fact, there are only two constitutionally mandated committees: the Committee on Appropriations and the Public Accounts Committee. By law, practice, and procedure, the Appropriations Committee is controlled by the ruling party, while the Public Accounts Committee is chaired by a member of the minority opposition. This arrangement is by design. It is part of the transparency and accountability architecture of democratic governance. It is important that the work of the Public Accounts Committee should not be misunderstood. Its proceedings are not necessarily structured as probes that must culminate in a named indictment or a penalty. The committee functions as an ombudsman or internal auditor. The executive arm has the Office of the Auditor General for that purpose. I would encourage members of the public to read the Auditor General’s annual reports. The depth of scrutiny they contain is remarkable. It is often from those reports that the Public Accounts Committees of both chambers draw their initial intelligence.
The purpose, therefore, is to hold agencies to account, perhaps animate them and compel responsiveness. Not everything that happens in the National Assembly must happen in the open. Even when we move into executive session, we adhere to the parliamentary convention of reporting progress to the media — summarising, in broad terms, what was discussed behind closed doors.
The Public Accounts Committee also operates in this manner. I am aware of a number of matters that the Public Accounts Committee engaged with at the start of the 10th National Assembly. Some have been resolved through intervention — whether by the agency in question producing documentary evidence to counter the allegations, or through other legitimate considerations. In the course of its proceedings, there are times when a committee must weigh the broader implications of its actions: What is the effect on current investors? What is the reputational consequence for the sector? Where does the matter stand under existing legislation such as the Petroleum Industry Act? Has the situation that gave rise to the original concern already been addressed under the current administration? These are legitimate considerations that cannot always be aired publicly by their nature. When such considerations arise, they can slow down the visible progress of a committee’s work, thus creating the impression, from the outside, that nothing is happening or that a compromise has been reached.
I want to be clear: no senator worth his office would want to be known for initiating a probe and abandoning it. That would imply compromise, and that is not what drives these outcomes. I personally chaired the Joint Committee to Investigate Alleged Economic Sabotage in the Nigerian Petroleum Industry. Some of you asked me whether the probe would end the way previous ones ended. I gave you my word. What happened beyond what the media was able to cover was substantial.
Without the committee ever formally publishing its findings, a great deal transpired. The industry had experienced leadership shakeup. That is the kind of behind-the-scene collaboration between the legislature and the executive that produces real outcomes, even when the public record appears incomplete. The underlying interest is the overriding public interest.
A court recently ruled against some parts of the INEC Guidelines. With this court decision, will the National Assembly consider an amendment to the Electoral Act?
I will be candid. I personally listened to a former Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mike Ighini analysing the 2026 Electoral Act on one occasion. While he made some valid points, some of his conclusions demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislative intent behind several of the provisions he was criticising..
That is part of the beauty of our democratic system and the principle of separation of powers. We make the law as the legislature. The President assents to the law or withholds assent. The judiciary interprets the law and determines its validity. If the courts have chosen to strike down certain parts of the INEC Guidelines for Election. So be it. Within the framework of competent judicial authority, that is how the system is supposed to work.
When some of my colleagues suggested we should return to the National Assembly to amend the Electoral Act in the immediate aftermath of those rulings, I declined to support that course of action. I was not going to participate in amending an electoral law as the Leader of the Senate days before primaries or months before a general election, in the middle of an atmosphere where every party is accusing the other of manipulating the process and INEC is under enormous pressure from all sides.
Any amendment to the Electoral Act, 2026 must come after the elections have been concluded. It must come with the explicit caveat that no amendment can have retroactive effect on elections already held. That is my firm position.
Another court declared unlawful N110 billion allocated for vehicle and allowance schemes of the National Assembly. What is the disposition of the National Assembly to this court decision?
All allowances received by parliamentarians — at both the federal and state levels — should be published, fully and publicly, once and for all. I genuinely believe that if this were done, legislators might actually emerge as the greatest beneficiaries of that transparency. For instance, today, a constituent may come to me in need of N250,000 for the tuition fees of his child and I am able to offer him N50,000 or N100,000. He walks away uncertain whether to be grateful, because he has no idea how many other people are making the same request to me or what my actual resources are.
The mystery surrounding legislative remuneration breeds assumption. Assumption, in this case, does not favour legislators. There are two things I want to place on the record clearly. First, legislators do not set their own salaries. Our remuneration is determined by the Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission. Iit is not within our power to fix. Second, the vehicles allocated to senators and members of the House of Representatives are not personal property. They are official vehicles, provided to enable constituency work and legislative duties. It is not different in principle from the official cars provided to directors, permanent secretaries, and ministers across the executive arm of government. That distinction is almost never made in public discourse. It should be. Parliamentary institutions are rarely popular, and this is not peculiar to Nigeria. In many countries, members of the executive find legislators inconvenient because oversight is inconvenient. If you are genuinely holding agencies and ministries to account, you will attract enmity. That is the nature of the work. I will say this: the question of publishing legislative remuneration is one I believe must be addressed as we prepare for a New Assembly. My position is clear. The Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission should publish comprehensively what every category of public officeholder earns: members of the National Assembly, members of the State Houses of Assembly, ministers, and all other relevant categories. That settles the matter permanently. You may quote me on that.
Can you highlight key achievements of the Senate in the last 36 months as well as its lowest points?
I am never eager to enumerate achievements in a country where so many of our people are burdened by insecurity, economic hardship, and daily struggles. Patriotism and modesty counsel against self-congratulation in such circumstances.
Since you have asked, I will answer. Let me start with our lovest point. The lowest point was a period during which it appeared to the outside world that there was disorder on the floor of the Senate, that we lacked internal cohesion, that we had shown disrespect to the female gender, and that we were not functioning as a unified institution. During that period, the daily conversation in the media was not about legislation or governance. It was about the suspension of a senator, the appropriateness of the penalty, and the internal politics of the chamber.
That was a painful distraction from the work we were doing. It overshadowed everything else. For me, it was not a period I look back on with any satisfaction.
However, we have done well despite these challenging times. The Senate has done a great deal in working with the executive arm to stabilise the economy. We have made laws in virtually every sector: agriculture, education, health, banking and finance, securities and foreign exchange regulation. We have exercised oversight to ensure that agencies deploy appropriated funds as intended. Through the four tax reform bills, which I regard as genuinely revolutionary, we have laid a foundation that will begin to transform the non-oil sector of this economy in particular.
What about your personal achievements as the Leader of the Senate and the representative of Ekiti Central?
I have sponsored more than 70 bills in the National Assembly. Of these bills, more than half are private member bills originating from my own legislative initiative. Seven of those bills have led directly to the establishment of at least six federal institutions, all within the first two years. The institutions include the University of Agricultural and Development Studies, which has been signed into law and is now fully operational. The Federal University of Technology and Environmental Sciences in Ekiti, now in its first academic session. The upgrade of the Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti and Yaba College of Technology to Federal University of Technology. The Federal University of Science and Technology, Epe, in Lagos State has also been established.
Beyond education, my first bill as a senator in this assembly was the bill to restore Nigeria’s original national anthem, which Mr. President assented to on the 11th June, 2023. This was sung as our national anthem the very next day, Democracy Day, 12th of June 2023.
In different ways — fundamental and symbolic, the work of this Senate has been consequential. There is more to be done, and we intend to do it.
