Nigeria is asking its citizens to make extraordinary sacrifices. Fuel subsidy removal has increased the cost of transportation and production. Exchange-rate reforms have pushed up the prices of goods and industrial inputs. Inflation continues to erode household incomes, while businesses struggle with rising operating costs, expensive credit and weak consumer demand. The Tinubu administration maintains that these measures are necessary to restore macroeconomic stability and lay the foundation for long-term growth.
Whether Nigerians ultimately embrace that argument will depend on more than economic policy. It will depend on whether they trust the institutions responsible for managing public resources.
Economic reforms rarely succeed on technical merit alone. They require institutional credibility. Citizens are more willing to accept painful adjustments when they believe the government is managing scarce public resources with discipline, transparency and accountability. Investors commit capital not only because macroeconomic indicators improve but because institutions provide confidence that rules will be respected and public finances responsibly managed. Markets, in other words, price institutional quality just as they price inflation, debt sustainability and exchange-rate stability.
It is against this backdrop that the recent reconciliation between Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Adams Oshiomhole deserves closer examination.
The public apology offered by the Senate President and accepted by Senator Oshiomhole was widely interpreted as the restoration of harmony within the Red Chamber. Political reconciliation is welcome, but the significance of that moment lies less in the handshake than in the issues the disagreement brought into the public domain.
The apology occurred during Senate deliberations over the refusal of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and Government-Owned Enterprises to honour invitations from the National Assembly. Senator Oshiomhole defended his earlier comments regarding former Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) Group Chief Executive Officer, Mele Kyari, arguing that institutions entrusted with public resources cannot choose whether to submit to legislative oversight. Senate President Akpabio, while withdrawing his description of those remarks as “unsenatorial,” reaffirmed the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to demand accountability from public institutions.
The issue, therefore, is not whether two senior politicians have restored their relationship. It is whether the Senate possesses the credibility, independence and institutional resolve to discharge one of its most important constitutional responsibilities, holding the Executive and publicly funded institutions accountable on behalf of the Nigerian people.
Nigeria has long suffered from the tendency to personalise governance. Political debate revolves around individuals rather than institutions, personalities rather than processes and alliances rather than accountability. Yet democracy is sustained by institutions whose legitimacy derives from consistency, not from the personal relationships of those who temporarily lead them. The National Assembly was established to legislate, authorise public expenditure and exercise oversight over the Executive. Every other consideration is secondary.
Among the issues that resurfaced was the Senate Public Accounts Committee’s scrutiny of the audited accounts of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited. Public proceedings highlighted significant audit queries and substantial unreconciled financial entries requiring explanation by the company. It is important to distinguish between audit queries and proof of wrongdoing. Their purpose is to identify discrepancies, test compliance and require clarification before irregularities become systemic failures.
The implications extend far beyond one institution. Every unresolved audit query, delayed appearance before parliamentary committees or failure to implement oversight recommendations weakens the integrity of Nigeria’s public financial management system. The credibility of the federal budget depends not only on projected revenues and expenditure priorities but also on Parliament’s ability to verify how public resources are generated, managed and spent. Citizens pay taxes, investors commit capital and development partners provide financial support on the assumption that constitutional oversight institutions are functioning effectively. Where that assurance weakens, fiscal credibility suffers, governance risks increase and the legitimacy of economic reforms becomes more difficult to sustain.
The same principle applies internally to the National Assembly. An institution that demands accountability from others must also demonstrate accountability in its own conduct. The Senate cannot insist that MDAs comply with its summons while Nigerians question whether its disciplinary procedures, committee processes and internal decision-making consistently meet the standards of fairness, transparency and independence it expects from other public institutions.
That is why the controversy surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan assumed significance beyond the immediate facts of the case. It raised broader questions about institutional integrity and due process. Public reports that Senator Ireti Kingibe did not endorse the committee’s report further intensified debate about whether legislative committees provide sufficient room for independent judgment or whether political considerations sometimes overshadow objective evaluation of evidence. Whatever one’s opinion of the suspension, the larger issue is whether Nigerians retain confidence that Senate committees can investigate sensitive matters fairly and without predetermined outcomes. Oversight begins at home.
This principle is embedded in Nigeria’s constitutional architecture. Sections 4, 80, 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution establish the National Assembly as a co-equal arm of government with authority not only to legislate and control public expenditure but also to investigate ministries, departments, agencies and institutions entrusted with public funds. Those powers exist to expose corruption, eliminate waste, improve efficiency and strengthen governance.
The political economy significance of these constitutional provisions is often underestimated. Legislative oversight is frequently viewed as an anti-corruption mechanism, but its importance extends far beyond exposing financial misconduct. Effective oversight shapes incentives across the entire public sector. It influences how public institutions plan, spend, report and account for public resources. When ministers, chief executives of government agencies and accounting officers know that Parliament will rigorously scrutinise budgets, procurement decisions, audit findings and financial statements, compliance with public financial management rules becomes more likely. Oversight therefore creates incentives for better governance before failures occur, rather than merely identifying them after the fact.
The reverse is equally true. Where oversight is inconsistent, selective or perceived to be influenced by political expediency, institutions gradually shift their priorities. Instead of investing in administrative efficiency, financial discipline and service delivery, they devote increasing attention to cultivating political protection and navigating power relationships. Over time, transparency gives way to opacity, accountability weakens, audit recommendations remain unimplemented and fiscal discipline deteriorates. The consequence is not merely institutional inefficiency but a gradual erosion of public trust in the state’s capacity to manage national resources responsibly.
This relationship between institutional quality and economic performance is increasingly recognised globally. Investors, credit rating agencies and development finance institutions now assess governance alongside inflation, debt sustainability and macroeconomic stability because they understand that sound economic policies require credible institutions to sustain them. Fiscal reforms, tax reforms and public expenditure reforms cannot achieve their intended outcomes where accountability mechanisms are weak. Strong oversight reduces governance risk, improves policy credibility and lowers the long-term cost of capital by reassuring markets that public resources are subject to independent scrutiny. Weak oversight has the opposite effect, increasing uncertainty, discouraging investment and undermining confidence in the state’s reform agenda.
Other democracies illustrate this principle. In the United Kingdom, the Public Accounts Committee has, for decades, subjected governments of every political persuasion to rigorous scrutiny, reinforcing the principle that accountability transcends party politics. In the United States and South Africa, parliamentary committees routinely summon ministers, regulators and heads of state-owned enterprises to explain policy decisions, financial management and institutional performance. Their effectiveness lies not in the absence of political disagreement but in the consistency of institutional rules and the public expectation that no office holder is exempt from scrutiny.
Nigeria need not replicate these systems wholesale, but it should embrace the same constitutional philosophy: accountability must be institutional, not situational. Oversight should not become more vigorous because political tensions exist, nor weaker because political leaders have reconciled. Constitutional responsibility does not fluctuate with personal relationships. The credibility of Parliament depends on its willingness to apply the same standards consistently, irrespective of personalities, party affiliations or political convenience.
The Akpabio-Oshiomhole reconciliation therefore presents the Senate with a rare opportunity to strengthen institutional legitimacy. Committee proceedings involving public finance should become more transparent, audit findings should be pursued until they are satisfactorily resolved, and minority opinions should be recognised as evidence of healthy democratic deliberation rather than institutional disloyalty. Oversight should increasingly be driven by evidence, audit reports, performance data and professional analysis instead of political rhetoric. Doing so would not only strengthen the credibility of the Senate but also improve the quality of public financial management, reinforce investor confidence and enhance the legitimacy of Nigeria’s broader economic reform programme.
The real measure of the Akpabio-Oshiomhole reconciliation, therefore, is not whether peace has returned to the Red Chamber. It is whether the Senate emerges with stronger oversight, greater institutional independence and renewed public confidence. If this moment leads to a legislature that scrutinises public finance more rigorously, protects the integrity of its own processes and reinforces the constitutional principle that no public institution is above accountability, the handshake will have achieved far more than political reconciliation. It will have strengthened Nigeria’s democracy and reinforced the institutional foundations upon which sustainable economic reform ultimately depends.
That is what truly lies beyond the handshake. Because, in the end, democracies are not sustained by political reconciliations. They are sustained by institutions that command public trust.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
John Onyeukwu, is a lawyer and public policy analyst with interdisciplinary expertise in law, governance, and institutional reform. He holds an LL.B (Hons) from Obafemi Awolowo University, an LL.M from the University of Lagos, and dual master’s degrees in Public Policy from the University of York and Central European University. He also earned a Mini-MBA. John has managed development projects on governance, public finance, civic engagement, and service delivery. He can be reached on john@apexlegal.com.ng
Can Enugu build a $30 billion economy beyond announcements?