Senate Drama: Abaribe Vs Jibrin Over Nwosu Tribute Motion

Clash at the Senate: Abaribe Challenges Jibrin on Procedure

On Wednesday, the Senate witnessed a heated exchange between Senator Enyinaya Abaribe and Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin, turning what was supposed to be a routine session into a dramatic showdown. The clash centered around a motion proposed by Senator Abaribe to honor the legacy of the late Humphrey Nwosu, the former chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC). This proposal sparked a procedural disagreement that quickly escalated into a battle of words and principles.

Naija News reported that Senator Abaribe, along with a group of co-sponsors including Senator Victor Umeh, Senator Abba Moro, Senator Orji Uzor Kalu, Senator Okey Ezea, and Senator Onyekachi Nwaebonyi, sought to immortalize Nwosu's contributions to Nigeria's electoral system. The motion, however, was rejected by Jibrin, who presided over the session, citing that it didn't adhere to the proper process. This decision set the stage for a spirited debate that tested the limits of parliamentary decorum.

Why the Motion Was Rejected

Jibrin’s rejection of the motion didn’t sit well with Abaribe, who argued that the Senate wasn’t operating under a dictatorship and that Senators should have the freedom to present personal explanations, even if the motion didn’t align with the day’s official agenda. In his defense, Abaribe passionately stated, “Even if the Senate leader says it doesn’t follow, by the fact that a Senator wants to make a personal explanation, you must give that Senator a chance to make that personal explanation. We are not under a dictatorship, Mr President.”

Read also:

David Mccallums Net Worth 2024 The Journey Of A Legendary Actor

In response, Jibrin clarified that Abaribe had initially discussed the motion with him in the morning, agreeing to present it under Orders 40 and 51. However, Abaribe ended up moving a motion under a different Order that wasn’t listed for the day’s plenary, leading to the rejection. Jibrin explained, “When I came this morning, you approached me, in respect of your desire to move this motion under Orders 40 and 51. You never told me you were bringing it under 42. And when it came under 41 and 51, it was defeated. Now you’ve changed your mind to bring it under Order 42.”

Clarifications and Counterarguments

Further elaborating, Jibrin added, “We respect you very well, it was not discussed. When the Senate leader came in, I called him, I told him Senator Abaribe is bringing a motion under Order 41 and 51, and we agreed. We normally have to consult with the leadership. We agreed that it was going to be brought forward. But did I tell the Leader he was going to bring a motion under Order 42? So, you didn’t approach me, you didn’t tell me, and I just want to be transparent. You didn’t tell me, if you had told me, there is no way I would stop you. It is a process. You had told me you would bring your motion under Order 41, we obliged you.”

Abaribe, however, stood firm in his belief that honoring Humphrey Nwosu was a cause worth pursuing, irrespective of procedural hiccups. He questioned the controversy surrounding the motion, stating, “Mr President, I don’t know what is controversial about immortalizing Humphrey Nwosu.” For Abaribe, the essence of the motion was to celebrate a legacy that transcended party lines and procedural hurdles.

This clash underscores the delicate balance between adhering to parliamentary procedures and allowing flexibility for important issues to be addressed. As the Senate continues its legislative duties, it remains to be seen how such disagreements will be navigated in the future, ensuring both respect for process and space for meaningful dialogue.