The tale of two intersections: Law, power and the constitution

In the past few weeks, Nigeria has witnessed two significant political events—one at the red chambers of the Senate and the other at the Lagos state house of assembly. Both incidents have drawn public attention and political controversy, yet their fundamental legal interpretations remain anchored in the guiding documents of our democracy—the constitution and the senate standing rules.

To separate emotion from legality, we must engage critically with the laws governing these institutions.

The senate: Order, procedure, and the Natasha-Akpabio exchange

The first event involved Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio—a confrontation that has since dominated public discourse. However, beyond the emotions and political undertones, the situation boils down to a matter of procedural order as established in the Senate Standing Orders.

According to Order 11(1) of the senate rules, it is the duty of the senate president to allocate seats to senators. More importantly, Order 11(2) states that a senator may only speak from their allocated seat. This rule ensures order, structure, and discipline within the legislative chamber.

Thus, regardless of what transpired beyond these legal provisions, the senate rules are clear on where a senator must speak from. Any other grievances or concerns that may have emerged from the incident belong in a court of law, not in an emotionally charged debate detached from constitutional and procedural realities.

Lagos: The impeached speaker, the elected speaker, and the supremacy of the constitution

While the red chambers engaged in its own controversy, another critical event unfolded in Lagos, where Mudashiru Obasa was impeached as speaker of the Lagos state house of assembly and replaced by Abiodun Mosunmola Meranda. This development, though politically heated, should have had only one legal interpretation—the Lagos state house of assembly acted within its constitutional rights.

The Nigerian Constitution in Section 92(1) is unambiguous:

“There shall be a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of a House of Assembly who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves.”

Nowhere does the constitution permit an external body—whether a political party, a godfather, or a higher-ranking official—to impose leadership on the House of Assembly. The selection of a speaker is exclusively within the legislative powers of the members of the House.

Yet, despite this constitutional clarity, we saw attempts to challenge this lawful transition of power, highlighting a recurring problem in Nigerian democracy—the misconception that political parties are supreme over the constitution.

Party supremacy vs. constitutional supremacy: A defining battle

For those who argue that “the party is supreme,” it is essential to understand the limitations of that statement. A political party derives its power from the constitution; it does not override it. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no party decision can supersede its provisions.

If political actors continue to disregard constitutional boundaries, then democracy itself is at risk of being hijacked by interests that care more about power than about governance.

A war already lost in Lagos

While the case in the red chambers remains an ongoing battle, the war was already lost in Lagos. The Lagos state house of assembly had an opportunity to reaffirm the legitimacy of constitutional order by standing firmly by its elected speaker, Hon. Meranda. Instead, what transpired was a troubling capitulation to political pressure, an outcome that further weakens the independence of state legislatures across the country.

By allowing external forces to dictate leadership in the house, Lagos has set a dangerous precedent—one that suggests that state assemblies are no longer guided by the constitution but by political convenience.

This is the true crisis in Nigerian democracy—not just the battles in the Senate but the erosion of constitutional authority in state legislatures where laws are meant to be enacted and upheld.

The bigger picture: Nigeria at a crossroads

The two incidents—one in the senate, one in the Lagos state house of assembly—are not isolated. They are symptomatic of a larger struggle for the soul of Nigerian democracy.

The question now is: Do we want a democracy governed by the rule of law, or do we want a democracy dictated by political whim?

The constitution provides clarity. The laws are there to guide us. But if we continue to bend the law for the sake of political expediency, then the very foundation of democracy is at risk.

It is time for Nigerians to activate their role as true defenders of democracy. The constitution is only as powerful as the citizens who demand its enforcement. Let us choose the rule of law over the rule of men.

Kunle Lawal is the executive director of Electoral College Nigeria