ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh

A recent video of Senator Adams Oshiomhole praising Senate President Godswill Akpabio has put the spotlight back on the 10th National Assembly. In the clip, Oshiomhole called Akpabio’s leadership exceptional. He said the Senate President has brought politicians from opposition parties into the APC without threats, pressure, or public fights.

According to Oshiomhole, people who used to be fierce opponents are now joining the APC willingly because of the atmosphere Akpabio has created. He even joked that Akpabio deserves a Guinness World Record for pulling off these political shifts so smoothly and seamlessly.

The comment has elevated the positive perception of the 10th Senate and sparked conversations around the institutional integrity of the 10th Senate. For Akpabio’s admirers, it shows his skill at building bridges, cooling down political tension, and getting people to work together. Critics may see it as a typical political praise that comes with power and authority. But beyond the buzz, one thing is clear: the 10th Senate leadership has become one of the most talked-about institutions since this government started.

Since taking office in June 2023, Akpabio has positioned himself as a leader focused on unity and stability. In his first in speech as Senate President, he said his election was a collective win, not a personal one. He promised to lead with fairness and integrity, put teamwork first, and keep national interest above party lines. He admitted that disagreements are normal in democracy, but said the Senate must move past division to focus on lawmaking, oversight, security, and the economy. This demonstrated commitment has occasioned multiple vote of confidence on Akpabio’s leadership by the 10th Senate.

That message mattered because Nigerians were already worried about governance, the economy, and deep political divides. Akpabio promised that the 10th Senate would work with the executive but still do its job as a check on power. He called it “a Senate for all Nigerians” and described his approach as “Servant leadership” and “Uncommon leadership.” Those phrases have stuck.

This style has brought calm to the Senate. Unlike past assemblies marked by internal fights and clashes with the Executive arm, this Senate has kept a working relationship with President Bola Tinubu’s administration. For many analysts, this cooperation is more necessary right now than ever, with inflation, insecurity, unemployment, and debt all weighing on the country.

Several leaders have publicly backed Akpabio’s approach. Edo State Governor, Monday Okpebholo, praised his transformational and development-focused leadership. Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu called him visionary and patriotic, saying he has strengthened the National Assembly. Akpabio has also received several awards for legislative integrity and institutional leadership to add verve to his leadership pedigree.

At the International arena, Senator Allwell Heacho Onyesoh credited him with helping Nigeria regain visibility in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, calling it a diplomatic win. Many say this shows the Senate leadership is thinking beyond Abuja.

Akpabio has repeatedly stressed inclusiveness. In many of his speeches, he has spoken about more roles for women, support for persons with disabilities, youth empowerment, and pushing innovation and technology. He has argued that Nigeria’s future depends on preparing young people for a knowledge-based economy and making laws that support technology, entrepreneurship, and revenue sources beyond oil.

This is evidently seen in his home state (Akwa Ibom State). The working relationship between Akpabio and Governor Umo Eno is having a clear effect on Akwa Ibom’s politics and economy. Both men have pushed for inclusive politics, and that has helped calm tensions in the state. Leaders, stakeholders, and ordinary citizens now feel like they have a place in how the state is run. That has made it easier for people across party lines to work together on projects that move the state forward.

One big result is the growing support for Governor Eno’s administration. Instead of stoking division or personal rivalries, Akpabio has publicly backed the governor’s development plans. That has taken some heat out of state politics and given people more confidence in government. For many residents, it now feels like governance is a team effort, not a fight for personal power.

Akpabio’s backing has also put Akwa Ibom more firmly on the federal radar. As Senate President, he has the clout to draw national attention and opportunities to the state. That has led to better cooperation between Akwa Ibom and the federal government on roads, human capital programmes, and economic projects. The calm between both leaders has also made investors and development partners more comfortable. Stable politics make it easier for them to commit.

Governor Eno’s government is seeing the benefits of that stability. His policies on rural development, job creation, agriculture, and social welfare are getting wider public support because political leaders are not pulling in different directions. This symbiotic relationship is the first in the annals of Akwa Ibom State since creation

These ideas line up with President Tinubu’s “Renewed Hope” agenda. The government has pushed through fuel subsidy removal, exchange rate changes, and fiscal reforms to stabilize finances and attract investment. Officials say these moves are necessary for long-term growth, regardless of the hardship for many Nigerians.

That’s why the National Assembly’s role matters now more than ever. The Senate has to pass laws that support reforms, but also keep oversight to make sure policies actually help citizens. Akpabio has said the Senate will protect national interest while backing policies that can drive recovery.

Even with all the praise coming his way, Akpabio often shifts credit to President Tinubu. He frames himself as part of a team, not the sole force behind stability. He has praised Tinubu’s push to rebuild investors’ confidence and restore trust through the Renewed Hope Agenda.

He points to ongoing projects like the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway and the Lagos-Maiduguri corridor as signs of long-term planning. These roads show a serious effort to connect the country and fix years of neglect in transport infrastructure.

Akpabio has also highlighted the creation of development commissions across the geopolitical zones. He says this shows the government is trying to make every region feel carried along. In a country often split along ethnic and regional lines, that message resonates.

On security, he has backed the military’s operations against terrorism, banditry, and other crimes. With kidnapping, insurgency, and communal violence still major concerns, his public support for the administration’s approach reinforces the image of the Senate and presidency working together.

One striking part of his recent comments was his mention of early endorsements for Tinubu ahead of 2027. He said the support isn’t random but tied to what he sees as real governance results.

Senator Oshiomhole’s comments also show a strategy in Nigerian politics that party strength is not just about winning elections. It’s about pulling in influential figures from other parties. Defections signal shifting power, and Oshiomhole’s remarks frame Akpabio as a unifier who expands the party through persuasion, not confrontation.

Still, Akpabio keeps selling himself as a leader who prefers partnership over division. His speeches push dialogue, teamwork, and putting Nigeria first. He reminds lawmakers that even though they came in on different platforms, they are all representing one country.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, Akpabio is now one of the deepest and most thoughtful figures in Nigeria’s political space. He has kept strong ties in the Senate, stayed aligned with the presidency, and earned public endorsements from major players. That has solidified his position and sustained the sobriquet “uncommon transformer”.

Rt Hon Eseme Eyiboh is the Special Adviser,Media/Publicity and Official Spokesperson to the President of the Senate

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Akpo Ojo

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has emphasised the critical role of state governments in ensuring a successful transition to an inflation targeting monetary policy framework for the country.

The apex bank stressed that sustained price stability can be achieved, only through coordinated fiscal discipline across all tiers of government.

Speaking during an engagement with sub-national stakeholders, facilitated through the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) secretariat, the CBN Deputy Governor in-charge of the Economic Policy Directorate, Muhammad Abdullahi, described the move toward inflation targeting as a shift to a more rule-based, transparent and forward looking monetary framework that demands close collaboration with state governments.

He stated that while the CBN retains the responsibility for deploying monetary policy tools to control inflation, fiscal actions, particularly at the sub-national level, play a significant role in shaping inflation outcomes within a federal system, such as Nigeria’s.

Abdullahi explained that inflation targeting is fundamentally about managing expectations, warning that uncoordinated or expansionary fiscal actions by state governments could either reinforce or undermine monetary policy signals.

He noted that states influence inflation through multiple channels, including borrowing, domestic debt accumulation, expenditure patterns, wage bills, capital project execution, salary arrears, overdrafts, contractor financing, and weak coordination on the federal allocation receipts, cash management and debt servicing.

“In an inflation targeting regime, persistent, unpredictable or expansionary fiscal behaviour at the sub-national level can significantly undermine price stability,” he declared.

The CBN deputy governor emphasised that the absence of fiscal dominance, where government borrowing pressures compel the apex bank to monetise deficits, is a core prerequisite for successful inflation targeting.

He noted that this principle applies not only at the federal level but equally to state governments, and urged states to reduce reliance on overdrafts and short term financing.

Also, he advised state governments to ensure that borrowing decisions align with their debt sustainability thresholds, improve budget realism and revenue forecasting, prioritise expenditure, and better synchronise fiscal calendars with prevailing macroeconomic conditions.

Under the inflation targeting framework, Abdullahi outlined four key responsibilities for state governments, as maintaining fiscal discipline and predictability, pursuing responsible borrowing aligned with medium term fiscal frameworks, strengthening coordination on cash and debt management, and enhancing internally generated revenue mobilisation.

He warned that unplanned expenditures, excessive supplementary budgets and unsustainable debt accumulation could trigger liquidity shocks and elevate inflationary risks.

He reiterated that inflation targeting is a collective national commitment to stability, credibility and long-term prosperity, adding that while the CBN remains accountable for delivering price stability, the framework’s success ultimately depends on disciplined fiscal behaviour across all tiers of government.

By strengthening coordination and embedding price stability as a shared objective, he added, state governments would support the new framework and lay firmer foundations for growth, job creation and improved social welfare.

Earlier, the CBN Director, Monetary Policy Department, Victor Oboh, described inflation targeting as a “win win framework” that benefits households, businesses and governments by anchoring inflation expectations, enhancing policy credibility and reducing macroeconomic uncertainty.

He stressed that price stability cannot be achieved through monetary policy alone, particularly in a federal system, noting that sub-national fiscal operations, especially spending, borrowing and cash flow decisions have direct implications for liquidity conditions and inflation outcomes.

According to Oboh, the engagement was designed to foster mutual understanding, promote open dialogue and deepen collaboration between the apex bank and state governments on the roles, expectations and coordination mechanisms required for the success of inflation targeting.

He further noted that sub-national governments play a pivotal role in Nigeria’s macroeconomic landscape, as decisions on wage policies, capital spending, debt accumulation and revenue mobilisation directly shape aggregate demand and inflation dynamics.

The director reaffirmed that the engagement forms part of the bank’s broader partnership with the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) and state governments, anchored on a shared commitment to embedding macroeconomic stability as a collective national objective.

Delivering a goodwill message on behalf of the Director-General of the NGF, Abdullateef Shittu, the Executive Director, Policy, Strategy and Research at the NGF, Olalekan Yunusa, commended the leadership of the CBN for what he described, as the strategic foresight behind the engagement, particularly the decision to involve sub-national fiscal authorities at an early stage of the transition process.

He noted that the shift from a monetary-targeting framework to inflation targeting, reflects a deliberate commitment to price stability as the central anchor of economic policy.

Shittu added that sustainable macroeconomic stability cannot be achieved through monetary policy alone and requires disciplined coordination across all tiers of government.

The engagement featured a detailed presentation on Nigeria’s transition to inflation targeting, with participants drawn from over 20 states.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The threat of industrial action recently issued by the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions against the management of the West African Examinations Council raises serious questions, not merely about labour relations, but about institutional responsibility, timing, and the broader national interest.

At a time when public institutions across Nigeria are under pressure to improve efficiency, accountability, and service delivery, it is difficult to understand the logic behind a strike threat targeted at one of the country’s most sensitive examination bodies, especially during an active examination season. The timing alone betrays a troubling disregard for students, parents, schools, and the educational system whose stability WAEC exists to protect.

Every year, millions of Nigerian students depend on WAEC examinations for academic progression and career opportunities. Any disruption to the examination process carries enormous consequences, not just for candidates, but for families and institutions nationwide. For a union to deliberately threaten industrial action during this critical period suggests not constructive engagement, but calculated disruption designed to exert maximum pressure on management irrespective of the collateral damage on innocent students.

This approach cannot be defended as responsible unionism. Genuine labour activism should seek balance between workers’ welfare and institutional sustainability. What is being witnessed instead appears to be an attempt to weaponise examination periods in order to force administrative concessions. Such a strategy undermines public confidence in both the union and the institution itself.

One of the most curious demands by the union is its opposition to ongoing recruitment exercises involving Examination Officers and Assistant Examination Officers. At a period when educational institutions and examination bodies are increasingly under pressure to improve operational efficiency, staff strength, and service delivery, recruitment should ordinarily be welcomed, not resisted. WAEC is not a private enterprise functioning in isolation. It is a major public examination institution with growing responsibilities across Nigeria and the West African sub region. Expanding its workforce where necessary is not only reasonable, but essential.

Indeed, rather than attacking management over recruitment, stakeholders should commend efforts aimed at strengthening manpower capacity. Examination administration is a technical and demanding responsibility requiring competence, speed, integrity, and adaptability. Attempts to frustrate recruitment efforts raise legitimate concerns about whether certain interests are more committed to preserving internal patronage structures than advancing institutional effectiveness.

Equally troubling is the union’s complaint regarding management decisions on investigative panels. In every serious organisation, management retains the authority to constitute panels, investigate allegations, and maintain internal discipline. No institution can function effectively where disciplinary mechanisms are subjected to union veto or politicisation. Administrative panels are part of normal governance structures. To portray their constitution as illegitimate simply because they are not union driven reflects a misunderstanding of organisational governance.

Management decisions are not made solely on the basis of sentiment or popularity. They are guided by institutional rules, operational needs, and regulatory obligations. If every administrative decision must first satisfy union approval before implementation, then managerial authority becomes meaningless. Institutions survive on structure, not perpetual contestation.

The objection to the reduction in examination duration is equally difficult to justify. Around the world, institutions continuously review operational models in order to improve efficiency, reduce waste, minimise fatigue, and optimise resources. Reducing unnecessary delays in examination processes should ordinarily be seen as progressive administrative reform rather than an attack on workers. If examination objectives can be achieved within shorter and more efficient timelines, then resistance to such reform appears more self-interested than principled.

The same applies to the union’s criticism of the minimum forty percent take home policy reportedly tied to additional work compensation. In an era where public institutions face intense financial scrutiny and sustainability concerns, organisations are compelled to introduce measures that ensure responsible financial management while still protecting workers’ welfare. It is neither unusual nor oppressive for institutions to establish financial thresholds aimed at balancing remuneration with operational viability.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the union’s position is the allegation that management is attempting to weaken the union through the distortion of membership. Such a claim is serious, but seriousness alone does not substitute for evidence. Allegations without proof only inflame tensions and distract from substantive engagement. If there are verifiable cases of anti-union practices, established procedures exist for addressing them. Public accusations unsupported by evidence only deepen mistrust and create unnecessary institutional instability.

The complaint about breach of seniority principles also deserves closer examination. Modern institutions no longer operate exclusively on seniority-based advancement. Competence, performance, professionalism, innovation, discipline, and leadership capacity are now central considerations in appointments and placements. Experience matters, but experience alone cannot be the sole determinant of responsibility in a complex and evolving institution like WAEC.

To insist that advancement must depend only on years served is to ignore the realities of contemporary organisational management. Institutions thrive when merit complements experience. Promoting individuals solely because they are older in service, regardless of performance or competence, would ultimately damage institutional effectiveness.

The union’s criticism of dismissals and sanctions raises perhaps the most fundamental issue of all. No serious organisation can survive without discipline. Rules exist to protect institutional integrity, operational standards, and public trust. If disciplinary actions are taken against erring staff after due process, such actions should not automatically be portrayed as victimisation. The alternative would be institutional permissiveness, where misconduct is tolerated in the name of labour solidarity.

Discipline is not oppression. Accountability is not persecution. Institutions that fail to enforce standards eventually descend into dysfunction. For an examination body entrusted with certifying the academic future of millions of students, integrity and discipline are not optional values. They are existential necessities.

None of this suggests that unions are unnecessary or that workers should not advocate for fair treatment. Trade unions remain important pillars of workplace protection and social justice. However, unionism must be exercised responsibly, especially within institutions carrying enormous public obligations. Labour activism loses moral credibility when it appears driven more by obstruction than constructive engagement.

WAEC occupies a uniquely sensitive position within Nigeria’s educational architecture. Its operations affect schools, universities, employers, parents, and students across the country. Any disruption to its activities reverberates nationally. This is why restraint, dialogue, and institutional responsibility must prevail over brinkmanship and sensational ultimatums.

At this critical moment, the wiser path for all parties is constructive engagement rather than escalation. The union must recognise that institutional reforms, administrative restructuring, recruitment exercises, and disciplinary systems are integral components of organisational management, not automatic evidence of hostility toward workers.

Nigeria’s educational system has suffered enough disruptions over the years. Students should not once again become casualties of avoidable industrial conflict. What WAEC requires now is stability, professionalism, and collective commitment to its core mandate. Anything less would amount to placing sectional interests above national educational priorities.

■ Rhodes, a public affairs analyst, sent this piece from Lagos. He can be reached at rhodes1988@gmail.com