The recent clash between Senator Adams Oshiomhole and Senate President Godswill Akpabio has once again thrust the former Edo State governor into the national spotlight.
During a heated Senate session, Oshiomhole challenged procedural decisions and openly confronted the Senate leadership, prompting many Nigerians on social media to celebrate him as a fearless truth-teller willing to challenge authority.
The confrontation is believed to be linked to the Senate’s recent amendment of its Standing Rules, which introduced stricter eligibility requirements for leadership positions in the 11th Senate.
Following a closed-door session, the Senate amended Orders 4 and 5 of its Standing Rules, tightening eligibility for presiding and principal offices. Under the new provisions, only senators who have served at least two consecutive terms immediately preceding nomination are eligible to contest for presiding offices. Nominations must also follow a ranking order, from former Senate Presidents to second-term senators.
The amendments effectively disqualify Oshiomhole and other first-term senators from contesting for key leadership positions.
Since then, the former national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has granted several interviews in which he publicly challenged Akpabio and disclosed details about internal Senate affairs, including issues surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
But before Nigerians crown Oshiomhole the conscience of the Senate, it is worth examining his political journey and asking whether his current posture is driven by principle or political convenience. It is also fair to ask: does Oshiomhole desire the office Akpabio currently occupies?
Oshiomhole is presenting himself as a senator unwilling to remain silent in the face of what he considers procedural irregularities. To his admirers, this demonstrates courage. To his critics, however, it raises a more difficult question: why now?
For many younger Nigerians, Oshiomhole is being rediscovered through viral Senate clips that portray him as combative, outspoken and willing to challenge powerful interests. Those who have followed his career over the last three decades know that his public image has often shifted with his political circumstances.
Oshiomhole first rose to national prominence as president of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). During the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, he became one of the country’s most visible opposition figures, leading protests and labour actions against government policies.
At the height of his influence, it often appeared as though Nigeria had two centres of power. Oshiomhole could declare a nationwide strike and millions of Nigerians would comply despite threats from the federal government.
His image as a defender of ordinary Nigerians earned him widespread public support. Such was his popularity that Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), former chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) once encouraged him to challenge Obasanjo in the 2003 presidential election.
That reputation helped propel him into elective office as governor of Edo State, where he served for eight years.
However, governing proved different from activism.
One of the most enduring controversies of his tenure involved Joy Ifije, a widow whose goods were confiscated by government officials in 2013 for a traffic-related violation. When she pleaded for leniency, Oshiomhole infamously told her to “go and die”.
The comment sparked national outrage. Although he later apologised, provided financial assistance, offered her employment opportunities and promised support for her children, the damage had been done.
For many Nigerians, the episode exposed a striking contrast between the labour leader who spoke passionately on behalf of ordinary people and the governor wielding the authority of the state.
It highlighted an enduring reality of politics: those who speak most passionately for the masses do not always govern with the same compassion once they acquire power.
This is why the current enthusiasm surrounding Oshiomhole’s Senate interventions deserves a more critical examination.
Consider his defence of Reno Omokri’s ambassadorial nomination. At a time when many Nigerians opposed the nomination because of Omokri’s previous remarks about President Bola Tinubu and perceived ideological inconsistency, Oshiomhole emerged as one of its defenders.
He argued that Omokri’s willingness to reassess his views and promote Nigeria abroad reflected political maturity and patriotism.
Whether one agrees with that assessment is beside the point. What matters is that Oshiomhole was prepared to support a controversial nominee despite significant public opposition. The episode illustrates a recurring feature of Nigerian politics: politicians often defend positions that align with prevailing alliances while presenting those decisions as matters of principle.
The same scrutiny should be applied to Oshiomhole’s current conduct in the Senate.
His allegations about procedural irregularities and his criticism of certain Senate actions have generated considerable public attention. Yet critics are entitled to ask why some concerns are raised loudly while others receive little or no attention.
If transparency and accountability are truly the guiding principles, consistency should be expected.
This is particularly relevant given that questions about due process, disciplinary procedures and internal power struggles have long been recurring features of legislative politics in Nigeria. These issues did not suddenly emerge yesterday.
Consequently, when Oshiomhole speaks today, citizens should not merely applaud. They should also interrogate.
Why was he silent on some issues and vocal on others?
Why do certain controversies attract his intervention while others do not?
Are his positions driven by principle or by calculations of political advantage?
These are legitimate questions in any democracy.
Unfortunately, Nigerian politics often encourages hero worship. Once a politician says something that aligns with public frustration, many citizens quickly elevate that individual into a symbol of integrity. Historical records are forgotten, and accountability becomes selective.
The danger is that politicians are allowed to reinvent themselves repeatedly without fully accounting for their past actions.
Oshiomhole is hardly the first Nigerian politician to benefit from this phenomenon, nor will he be the last.
The tendency to judge politicians solely by their latest soundbite rather than by their overall record has contributed significantly to Nigeria’s political stagnation. Citizens become trapped in cycles of disappointment because they evaluate leaders based on rhetoric rather than consistency.
A politician’s credibility should not be measured by how loudly he criticises others today. It should be measured by whether he applied the same standards when he held power, when his allies were under scrutiny and when speaking out carried genuine political risks.
This broader perspective is essential when assessing Oshiomhole’s latest confrontation with the Senate leadership.
The media may portray a dramatic clash between two powerful political figures, but the deeper story concerns the selective nature of political outrage in Nigeria. Oshiomhole’s critics see a politician who has rediscovered the language of accountability only after finding himself on the opposite side of certain political equations. His supporters see a courageous truth-teller.
The truth may lie somewhere in between.
What Nigerians should resist, however, is the temptation to treat any politician as a saint simply because he occasionally says what the public wants to hear.
Adams Oshiomhole has occupied many positions throughout his public life — labour leader, governor, party chairman and senator. His record, like that of most Nigerian politicians, contains moments that supporters celebrate and moments that critics find deeply troubling.
That record deserves careful examination.
To some Nigerians, Akpabio may appear the worst Senate President in Nigeria’s history based on his penchant for rubber-stamping anything and everything from the presidency, but I doubt if Oshiomhole will be different if he eventually becomes the Senate President.
Democracy is strengthened not when politicians are cheered uncritically, but when citizens evaluate them with consistency. The same standards applied to Akpabio, Tinubu, Obasanjo or any other public figure should also be applied to Oshiomhole.
Only then can public accountability move beyond personalities and become a genuine democratic principle.
Akinsuyi, former group politics editor of the Daily Independent, writes from Abuja. He can be reached via shabydayo@gmail.com
