Oshiomhole Warns Against ‘Personalised Laws,’ Says Democracy Suffers When Rules Target Individuals
Former Edo State Governor and Senator representing Edo North, Adams Oshiomhole, has weighed in on the controversy surrounding recent amendments to the Senate leadership eligibility rules, warning that democracy is endangered when laws are crafted to favour or exclude specific individuals.
Speaking during a heated debate over the amendment of Senate Standing Orders, Oshiomhole argued that legislative rules should be guided by principles and institutional integrity rather than personal interests or political calculations. His comments came amid growing controversy over new requirements introduced for senators seeking key leadership positions within the upper legislative chamber.
According to the outspoken lawmaker, morality and democratic values demand that lawmakers refrain from creating laws for their own benefit or designing rules specifically to prevent perceived political rivals from occupying future positions of authority.
“As a matter of morality, you don't make laws either for yourself or against specific individuals that you fear will come. That's the beginning of the road to life presidency and dictatorship,” Oshiomhole stated during the Senate proceedings.
The senator further warned that such practices could gradually erode democratic institutions and encourage the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals. Drawing comparisons with political developments elsewhere on the continent, he referenced neighbouring Cameroon, where long-term political dominance has often sparked debates about democratic succession and institutional independence.
“That’s why our neighbours can elect a 93-year-old man in Cameroon,” he remarked, suggesting that democracies become vulnerable when systems are manipulated to preserve the influence of certain individuals rather than uphold transparent and competitive political processes.
The controversy stems from amendments to Senate rules that introduced experience-related requirements for lawmakers seeking certain leadership positions. Supporters of the amendment argue that parliamentary leadership requires institutional knowledge, legislative experience, and familiarity with Senate procedures. Senate President Godswill Akpabio and his allies have defended the changes as necessary reforms aimed at strengthening the legislature and improving governance standards.
However, critics, including Oshiomhole, contend that the timing and nature of the amendment have created the impression that the rules were tailored to influence future leadership contests within the Senate. They argue that democratic institutions function best when laws are universal in application and not designed around the ambitions, fears, or interests of particular political actors.
Political observers note that debates over legislative rules are not uncommon in democratic systems worldwide. Nevertheless, concerns often arise when amendments appear to alter the political playing field in ways that could limit competition or restrict opportunities for future leaders.
Oshiomhole’s intervention has reignited broader conversations about internal democracy, legislative independence, and the importance of safeguarding institutions from what many see as personalised governance. His remarks have resonated with supporters who believe democratic systems should remain open, competitive, and free from regulations that could be interpreted as targeting specific individuals.
As discussions continue within the National Assembly, the controversy underscores a recurring challenge in democratic governance: balancing institutional reforms with the need to preserve fairness, inclusiveness, and public confidence in political processes.
For Oshiomhole, the issue goes beyond Senate procedure. It is, in his view, a fundamental question of democratic morality—whether laws should serve institutions or the interests of those who temporarily occupy positions of power.
0 Comments