Senate clarifies rule changes, says adjustments procedural

By Musa Baba Adamu

The Senate has clarified that the recent adjustments to its Standing Orders were purely procedural and not related to eligibility for election into leadership positions within the chamber.
This follows reports suggesting that the Presidency had overturned the revised Senate rules passed during plenary on Tuesday, a claim the upper legislative chamber has dismissed as false and misleading.
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Adeniyi Adegbomire, gave the clarification in an exclusive interview after plenary on Thursday.
According to him, the amendment considered by the Senate centred on the timing of oath-taking for lawmakers before participating in certain parliamentary processes, including leadership elections.
“One of the Orders that was considered was about whether you should take your oath of allegiance and membership before elections.
“The proposal that was passed on Tuesday among others was that you be sworn in before you can vote. It was just a procedural change,” he explained.
Adegbomire said the Senate later reverted to the previous arrangement after concerns were raised about possible constitutional inconsistencies.
“In the past, you don’t have to be sworn in before you vote for the Senate President and Deputy Senate President and now they said be sworn in first before election.
“Members were of the opinion that the Constitution says ‘you may’, so to avoid controversy, we decided to revert to the old order,” he added.
He further stressed that the issue of eligibility to contest or participate in elections within the Senate was not affected by the amendment, noting that it remains a separate matter entirely.
“The issue of eligibility stays and it is different from what we rescinded. We rescinded the order of oath-taking and eligibility to contest election. This is for clarity,” he said.
The Senate explained that the reversal was contained in the Order Paper of Thursday titled “Rescission and Recommittal of Order 2(2) and Order 3(1),” noting that the initial amendment could have created constitutional inconsistencies, particularly with Section 52 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
It added that the decision was aimed at ensuring full compliance with the Constitution, established parliamentary conventions, and legislative practice, while avoiding unnecessary institutional tension.
The clarification comes amid public debate over the implications of the Senate’s internal rule adjustments and speculation about external influence on the legislative process.