The reinstatement of Mudashiru Obasa as Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly—just 49 days after being removed by 36 out of 40 lawmakers—serves as yet another stark reminder of the prevailing legislative dependence in Nigeria. His return was not a testament to the strength of democratic principles but a sheer demonstration of the overwhelming influence of external forces that continue to dictate the affairs of the legislature.
Obasa, who was out of the country when his colleagues voted to remove him, did not humbly accept his removal. Instead, he defiantly dismissed the impeachment as inconsequential, declaring himself the legitimate Speaker. “I strongly believe I will still be the Speaker until the right thing is done. If you want to remove me, remove me properly, and I will not contest it” he said. That a lawmaker could so confidently disregard a decision backed by an overwhelming majority of his colleagues speaks volumes about the forces at play behind the scenes.
The allegations leading to his removal were weighty—ranging from a poor leadership style, high-handedness, habitual lateness to plenary sessions, and abuse of office to the intimidation of colleagues. These accusations should have been sufficient grounds for concern, if not outright disqualification from returning to office. Yet, in a swift and somewhat baffling sequence of events, Speaker Mojisola Meranda—the first woman to hold the office—was pressured to resign, paving the way for Obasa’s reinstatement.
Curiously, despite his public grandstanding and insistence that he remained Speaker, Obasa still took another oath of office upon his return, a tacit admission that his removal was legitimate. This singular act underscores the reality that, like most legislative bodies in Nigeria, the Lagos State House of Assembly is firmly under external control. But the key question remains: controlled by whom, and to what end?
Legislative Independence?
In theory, Nigeria’s democracy is modelled after the United States, built on the foundational three arms of government: the Executive, Judiciary, and Legislature. Some even argue for the recognition of a fourth estate—the press. These institutions are presumed to function independently, ensuring a system of checks and balances designed to prevent tyranny. However, in practice, is this truly the case? Assumption, after all, is just that—an assumption, often detached from reality.
The very essence of democracy rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. The legislature is tasked with lawmaking, representation, and oversight. It serves as the voice of the people, championing their interests while keeping the executive in check. But how independent can a legislative body truly be when its financial survival depends on the executive?
Before the amendment of Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution, governors held state legislatures hostage by controlling budget disbursements. Funds were released at the executive’s discretion, effectively dictating legislative compliance. Even with constitutional amendments promising financial autonomy, the reality remains grim—state legislatures are still largely at the mercy of the executive and other external forces.
External Control
One of the most critical ways the executive branch—and other powerful interests—exerts control over the legislative arm is by influencing the emergence of its leadership. Nigeria’s political history is littered with instances where the executive branch, party officials, and other stakeholders have determined who leads legislative houses at both the state and national levels.
Since the return to democratic rule in 1999, only the 8th National Assembly, led by Bukola Saraki, managed to break this pattern of executive imposition. Saraki’s ability to outmanoeuvre the Buhari presidency to secure the Senate presidency remains one of the rare instances of legislative independence in Nigeria. However, his defiance came at a great cost—his tenure was marked by relentless battles with the executive, highlighting just how intolerant the system is to an independent legislature.
This raises fundamental questions: To what extent does external control of the legislature undermine Nigeria’s democracy? Should political parties and the executive wield such unchecked influence over a supposedly independent arm of government? If the legislature remains a pawn in the hands of powerful interests, can Nigeria truly claim to practice democracy in its purest form?
Weak Institution
The intrigues surrounding Obasa’s reinstatement after what was, in effect, a vote of no confidence by an APC-dominated House of Assembly illustrate a deeper systemic flaw in Nigeria’s governance structure. Instead of powerful institutions guiding national affairs, the country continues to be shaped by powerful individuals whose influence oftentimes, overrides democratic processes.
Legislators, as representatives of the people, should have the unfettered right to determine who leads them. The law clearly stipulates how leadership can emerge among lawmakers and how it can be removed when necessary. Yet, in nine out of ten cases, lawmakers have little say in leadership selection. Obasa’s reinstatement is a textbook example—his return was not the result of legislative will but rather the intervention of a powerful figure behind the scenes.
More than anything else, his return has left several crucial questions unanswered. What happens to the allegations levelled against him, particularly those concerning abuse of office? Now that he has been handed what can be described as another lifeline, will he heed his colleagues’ concerns, or will he remain beholden to the unseen forces that engineered his return?
How will this development impact the strained relationship between him and Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu? The swiftness with which Governor Sanwo-Olu received Meranda and her team after her emergence as Speaker shows clearly that he is not so satisfied with Obasa’s leadership. Will Lagosians witness an escalation of hostilities, or will the all-powerful Governance Advisory Council (GAC) step in once again to mediate?
Should MultiChoice Listen?
Following widespread public outcry, the House of Representatives directed MultiChoice Nigeria to suspend its latest price hikes for DStv and GOtv packages. This directive comes on the heels of an earlier order by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), which instructed MultiChoice to maintain its existing subscription rates pending the conclusion of an ongoing investigation into the price adjustments.
While it remains unclear whether MultiChoice will comply, one thing is certain—the company, much like telecommunications providers, is merely responding to prevailing market forces. The cost of operations has surged due to inflation, foreign exchange instability, and rising energy costs. Businesses must adjust prices to remain profitable and, at the very least, break even. Rather than issuing directives that may prove ineffective, lawmakers should focus on addressing the root cause of the problem—reducing the high cost of doing business in Nigeria.
Until this is achieved, asking MultiChoice or telecom operators to freeze price hikes is akin to forcing them out of business. Policymakers must strike a balance between protecting consumers and ensuring a viable business environment for service providers.
Credit: Leadership