Between Akpabio’s Performance and Battle for 11th Senate Leadership

As Senator Godswill Akpabio seeks a second term as President of the Senate, early endorsements expose the emerging succession battle, raising critical questions about legislative performance, institutional independence and the 11th National Assembly. Sunday Aborisade reports.

The declaration by the Senate Chief Whip, Senator Tahir Monguno, that there is “no vacancy” in the office of the Senate President has introduced a fresh dimension to the emerging struggle for the leadership of the 11th National Assembly.

Beyond its immediate political implications, however, the declaration raises fundamental questions about legislative performance, institutional independence, political succession and the extent to which the present Senate can influence the leadership of a chamber whose membership Nigerians are yet to elect.

Monguno’s declaration during last Thursday’s plenary was unequivocal. Expressing confidence that a majority of serving senators would return to the chamber after the 2027 general election, he endorsed the continuation of Senator Godswill Akpabio as Senate President.

His position extended to the Deputy Senate President and other principal officers, signalling a broader preference for continuity in the leadership of the 10th Senate.

Senator Cyril Fasuyi subsequently reinforced the position, maintaining that the Senate presidency was already occupied and should not be treated as an office awaiting a new contest. Akpabio then put the position to a voice vote, with senators responding in support.

Politically, the development was significant. It demonstrated the willingness of Akpabio’s allies to begin consolidating support for his possible return well before the inauguration of the next National Assembly. Institutionally, however, it did not settle the question of who would preside over the Senate after the 2027 elections.

The distinction is crucial. The current Senate can express confidence in its leadership, but it cannot determine the composition or leadership of the 11th Senate. Nigerians will decide who represents them in the next National Assembly, while the senators elected in 2027 will choose their presiding officers in accordance with the Constitution and applicable parliamentary rules.

Akpabio, therefore, faces two separate political tests: securing his return to the Senate and persuading his colleagues in the next Assembly to elect him president. Success in the first will not automatically guarantee success in the second.

The emerging contest is consequently about much more than the survival of an incumbent. It is also a test of the relationship between political loyalty and legislative performance, the independence of parliament under a dominant executive, and the extent to which the leadership of the National Assembly should be determined by institutional considerations rather than the calculations of political power brokers.

Succession battle before the battlefield is formed

The timing of Monguno’s declaration provides an important insight into the political calculations surrounding the Senate presidency.

Akpabio had complained that controversies arising from his comments during deliberations on a bill dealing with attempted suicide were being exploited by political opponents to undermine his reputation ahead of the contest for the next Senate presidency. He had also suggested that the contests for the presidency and vice-presidency were effectively settled, leaving the Senate presidency as a major political prize still attracting attention.

Against this background, Monguno’s intervention can hardly be divorced from the calculations already gathering momentum around the 11th National Assembly.

The declaration appears designed, at least in part, to establish an early narrative of continuity, reassure Akpabio’s supporters and discourage potential challengers from assuming that the position will automatically become available after the next elections.

Yet the strategy presents an interesting paradox. While it may strengthen the incumbent’s standing among his allies, it also draws attention to the political uncertainty surrounding his ambition. If his return were already assured, why would the leadership need to establish so early that there was “no vacancy”?

Of course, an early endorsement is not necessarily evidence of weakness. In parliamentary politics, succession battles frequently begin long before the formal process, as aspirants build alliances, negotiate interests and seek assurances from colleagues.

Nevertheless, the declaration cannot eliminate the uncertainties that will shape the next leadership contest. Senators who endorse Akpabio today may not return in 2027. Those who return may reassess their positions in response to new political alignments, while newly elected senators will enter the chamber with interests and ambitions of their own.

The present Senate may therefore have expressed a preference, but the final political arithmetic remains unsettled.

What exactly is at stake?

The intensity of the emerging contest is understandable. The Senate President occupies one of the most influential positions in Nigeria’s political system, presiding over legislative business, participating in the determination of parliamentary priorities and exercising considerable influence over the allocation of committee responsibilities and the management of the chamber.

The office also places its occupant at the centre of relations between the legislature and the executive, particularly in budgetary proceedings, ministerial confirmations, oversight investigations and deliberations on major government policies.

These responsibilities make the Senate presidency both an institutional office and a significant instrument of political influence.

For Akpabio, retaining the position would mean continuing to shape the legislative agenda during a period when President Bola Tinubu’s administration will be approaching the next general election. For potential challengers, the contest represents an opportunity to influence the direction of the Senate and redefine its relationship with the executive.

However, the national interest demands that the contest should not be reduced to a struggle for political survival or the distribution of parliamentary privileges.

The more important question is whether the next Senate will be led by a presiding officer capable of strengthening legislative independence, improving accountability and restoring public confidence in the National Assembly.

That is the standard against which Akpabio’s third-year performance should be assessed.

Performance versus political loyalty

The central weakness in the emerging succession debate is the tendency to discuss Akpabio’s possible return principally in terms of endorsements, alliances and the number of senators willing to support him.

Those considerations are important in parliamentary politics, but they are insufficient to establish whether another term would serve the interests of the Senate or the Nigerian public.

An incumbent seeking another term should be judged on what he has accomplished, the institutional precedents established under his leadership and the extent to which the Senate has discharged its constitutional responsibilities.

Supporters of Akpabio can point to legislative activity, cooperation with the executive and the passage of government-backed measures as evidence of a productive working relationship between the two arms of government. They may also argue that a stable relationship between the Senate and the presidency can facilitate governance and prevent unnecessary institutional confrontations.

There is merit in that argument. Cooperation between the legislature and executive is not inherently undesirable. Governments require functional legislative institutions to consider proposed laws, approve expenditure and provide the legal framework for implementing public policies.

The problem arises when cooperation becomes indistinguishable from acquiescence.

A legislature that routinely endorses executive proposals without sufficiently interrogating their implications risks weakening the constitutional checks and balances that distinguish democratic government from executive dominance.

Consequently, the pertinent question is not whether Akpabio has maintained a working relationship with the Tinubu administration. It is whether that relationship has enabled the Senate to perform its oversight responsibilities effectively or diminished its willingness to challenge questionable policies and expenditure where necessary.

Has the Senate adequately scrutinised the federal budget and monitored the implementation of appropriations? Has the committees consistently investigated the performance of ministries, departments and agencies? Has oversight findings translated into corrective action, improved public expenditure or greater accountability?

How effectively has the chamber responded to the economic pressures confronting households, the challenges of insecurity, unemployment and the public demand for better governance?

These questions require evidence-based answers rather than political declarations.

The Senate presidency should not be treated as a reward for loyalty to the ruling party, the executive or the incumbent leadership. It is an office whose continued occupation should depend, in part, on the confidence of elected colleagues in the candidate’s ability to lead the institution effectively.

The independence question

Perhaps the most consequential issue confronting Akpabio is the perception of the Senate’s independence under his leadership.

Nigeria’s presidential system deliberately distributes power among the executive, legislature and judiciary. The National Assembly is not expected to operate as an extension of the presidency, just as the executive cannot reasonably expect the legislature to obstruct every government initiative.

The constitutional relationship is one of cooperation within clearly defined boundaries, with each arm retaining the authority and responsibility to perform its assigned functions.

In this arrangement, legislative independence is measured not by the frequency of disagreements with the executive but by the willingness and capacity of lawmakers to make decisions on their merits.

A Senate that supports a sound government proposal is performing its responsibilities. A Senate that rejects or amends a defective proposal after careful examination is doing so as well.

The critical issue is whether senators are free to exercise independent judgment without undue political pressure.

This question becomes particularly important when the ruling party controls the executive and commands substantial influence within the legislature. Under such circumstances, the Senate leadership carries a special responsibility to demonstrate that party affiliation does not override constitutional duty.

For Akpabio, a credible case for continuity would require demonstrating that the Senate has remained capable of holding government accountable, including where such scrutiny might be politically inconvenient.

It would also require showing that oversight is substantive rather than ceremonial, and that legislative decisions are guided by national priorities rather than the preservation of political relationships.

Without such evidence, an endorsement by serving senators may establish the incumbent’s political strength without necessarily resolving questions about his institutional performance.

Can ‘no vacancy’ prevent a contest?

In practical terms, the declaration cannot prevent a contest for the Senate presidency of the 11th National Assembly.

The Constitution provides the framework for the election of the Senate President by senators from among themselves. The relevant constitutional provisions, including Section 50, establish the offices of the presiding officers of the National Assembly and provide for their election.

The process is distinct from the general election through which Nigerians elect members of the Senate.

Akpabio must first secure a Senate seat before he can seek the presidency of the chamber again. Even if he returns, he will have to obtain the support of enough senators in the new Assembly to secure election.

The distinction between returning to the Senate and becoming its president is fundamental. A senator’s electoral victory confers membership of the chamber; it does not automatically confer the authority to preside over it.

Furthermore, the composition of the 11th Senate will depend on the outcome of elections across the country. Some serving senators will retain their seats, others will lose, and new lawmakers will introduce different constituencies, political interests and calculations into the chamber.

The possibility of a changed political configuration makes any attempt to treat the next Senate presidency as a settled matter premature.

Political discussions have also linked other prominent figures to calculations surrounding the contest, including Senator Adams Oshiomhole and Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodimma, who is seeking a return to the Senate. Such calculations underscore the likelihood that the contest will be shaped by a combination of party dynamics, regional considerations, personal ambition and negotiations among lawmakers.

However, potential candidacies and political alignments should not be confused with a settled field of contestants. The actual contest will become clearer as the elections approach and the composition of the next Senate emerges.

Danger of closing the door too early

Monguno’s declaration carries a further political risk: it could be interpreted as an attempt by the present Senate leadership to determine the choices available to its successor.

Although the endorsement has no power to bind the 11th Senate, the language of “no vacancy” may create the impression that the outcome has been predetermined before voters have elected the lawmakers who will make the decision.

Such an impression could provoke resistance among senators who believe the next Assembly should exercise its independence in choosing its leadership.

Indeed, an early declaration of continuity may unintentionally provide potential challengers with a rallying point. They could frame their campaign around the principle that the next Senate should be free to choose its president without being constrained by endorsements issued by the outgoing chamber.

The counterargument from Akpabio’s supporters is equally straightforward: serving senators are entitled to express confidence in their leader, and their endorsement does not prevent future senators from making their own choices.

That position is defensible. Political endorsements are a normal feature of democratic competition, and nothing about the declaration itself establishes that the constitutional process for electing the next Senate President has been displaced.

The controversy should therefore be assessed in proportion to its actual significance. The declaration is politically consequential, but it is not a constitutional guarantee of Akpabio’s return.

Its importance lies in the message it sends: the incumbent’s supporters intend to organise early, project confidence and make continuity a central theme of the succession debate.

Whether that strategy succeeds will depend on the circumstances that emerge after the 2027 elections.

Implications for 11th N’Assembly

The contest has implications extending beyond Akpabio’s personal ambition.

First, it could influence the conduct of the 10th Senate during its remaining months.

If the leadership becomes excessively preoccupied with succession, there is a risk that legislative priorities could be overshadowed by political manoeuvring.

Budget scrutiny, oversight investigations, law reform and other responsibilities requiring sustained attention must not become secondary to the struggle for parliamentary offices.

Second, the contest could affect the relationship between the Senate and the executive. A leadership seeking to retain office may face competing incentives: demonstrate cooperation with the presidency to preserve political support while also showing sufficient independence to satisfy lawmakers and the wider public.

How that balance is managed will influence the Senate’s institutional credibility.

Third, an early succession campaign could deepen divisions within the ruling party or the Senate if competing interests interpret the declaration as an attempt to monopolise the leadership position. Conversely, a transparent process based on consultation and respect for the prerogatives of the next Assembly could produce an orderly transition.

Fourth, the struggle provides an opportunity to reconsider what Nigerians should expect from legislative leadership. The National Assembly has frequently faced public criticism over its relationship with the executive, the cost of governance and the perceived distance between lawmakers and ordinary citizens.

A contest for the Senate presidency should therefore provide an opportunity for candidates to articulate clear commitments to legislative accountability, transparency, effective representation and institutional reform.

The next Senate will inherit substantial responsibilities, including scrutiny of national expenditure, consideration of laws affecting economic recovery and security, and oversight of government agencies responsible for delivering public services.

Its effectiveness will depend not merely on the identity of its president but also on the quality of its membership, the independence of its committees and the willingness of senators to place national interests above narrow political calculations.

The verdict will depend on more than numbers

Ultimately, Akpabio’s greatest challenge may not be defeating a particular rival. It may be persuading enough senators that continuity under his leadership would serve the institutional interests of the next Assembly.

To make that case convincingly, he must demonstrate what the Senate has achieved under his leadership, where it has fallen short and what he intends to do differently if given another opportunity.

He must also confront legitimate questions about legislative independence rather than allowing the succession debate to become a contest of endorsements and political loyalty.

For his supporters, the argument for continuity must rest on demonstrable accomplishments, effective management of the chamber and a credible commitment to stronger legislative oversight.

For potential challengers, the burden is equally demanding. It is not enough to oppose Akpabio or declare that the Senate presidency should change hands. They must explain how their leadership would improve the performance of the institution.

The decision ultimately belongs to the senators who will constitute the 11th National Assembly. Their choice should reflect not only political alliances but also their assessment of the qualities required to lead the chamber through the next phase of Nigeria’s democratic development.

Monguno’s declaration has undoubtedly given Akpabio an early political boost. It has also brought the succession question into sharper focus well before the 2027 elections.

But an endorsement by the present Senate cannot substitute for electoral victory, and electoral victory cannot substitute for the support required to become Senate President.

The real test will be whether Akpabio can return to the chamber, defend his record and persuade a new generation of senators that his continued leadership is preferable to an alternative.

If he succeeds, the declaration may be remembered as an early indication of a successful campaign for continuity. If he fails, it may instead become an example of the limits of political endorsements in a system where the final decision rests with elected lawmakers.

For now, the Senate presidency remains an open political question. The voters will determine the composition of the 11th Senate, and the senators elected will determine who leads it.

Beyond the battle for the office, however, lies a more important question for Nigerian democracy: will the next Senate be remembered for the political interests it serves or for the independence, accountability and quality of legislation it brings to public life?