The Nigerian Senate's recent behavior has become a source of embarrassment and concern, highlighting a disturbing trend of negligence in its constitutional duties. This is particularly evident in the screening process for President Bola Tinubu's ambassadorial nominees, where the Senate's performance has been nothing short of bewildering.
The Senate, which has already earned a reputation for being a rubber stamp, approving executive requests without much scrutiny, took a turn for the worse when two senators engaged in a public clash. However, this time, it wasn't about the nominee's competence or suitability; it was about who would get the honor of praising them first.
The nominee at the center of this spectacle was Reno Omokri, a political figure with a colorful past. Omokri, known for his agility in traversing Nigeria's political landscape, has been an ally to various political figures, including former President Goodluck Jonathan and Peter Obi. Yet, despite his controversial history and vitriolic attacks on Bola Tinubu, Omokri stood before the Senate without facing any rigorous interrogation about his ideological consistency or suitability for diplomatic service.
Instead, he became the subject of a public scuffle between Senator Ali Ndume and Senator Adams Oshiomhole. Senator Ndume, in a move he likely saw as procedural, suggested the 'bow and go' approach, a euphemism for the Senate's abdication of its screening duties. However, Senator Oshiomhole, either misunderstanding or ignoring the procedure, saw this as a threat to his chance to extol the nominee and, by extension, President Tinubu.
The ensuing exchange was embarrassing, to say the least. It was a display of mockery, played out live, with Omokri looking down on the senators, especially those from the Southeast whom he had previously vilified. This episode perfectly encapsulates the Senate's descent under its current leadership.
Instead of scrutinizing Omokri's fitness for diplomatic office, his ideological shifts, or his past incendiary comments, the senators engaged in a praise-singing contest. They seemed to believe that displaying public loyalty would curry favor with the President.
The 'bow and go' practice, which has been extended even to former governors and lawmakers, is a concerning trend in a democracy aspiring to maturity. Screening is not a formality; it is a constitutional safeguard. The fact that someone held elective office does not exempt them from scrutiny, especially when their past performance raises questions.
How can a democracy justify allowing former governors or legislators, some with a track record of failed policies or unresolved controversies, to simply 'bow and go' without any probing questions? What does this say about accountability and public trust?
When we compare this to other democracies, Nigeria's situation becomes even more troubling. In 2009, when President Barack Obama nominated Senator Hillary Clinton, a sitting U.S. senator, to be Secretary of State, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subjected her to rigorous hearings for two full days. She was grilled on policy positions, past votes, ethical issues, and strategic vision. Only then was her nomination sent to the full Senate, where it underwent further debate before confirmation.
Clinton was not told to 'bow and go.' Her prior service in the Senate was not seen as a waiver of scrutiny but as a reason for higher expectations. Even her status as a former First Lady did not exempt her from interrogation.
In contrast, the Nigerian Senate's spectacle of squabbling over praise time while nominees escape serious questioning is not just embarrassing; it's dangerous.
Reno Omokri's moment of silent mockery is not an isolated incident. Several nominees on the ambassadorial list raise serious concerns about competence and suitability. In a properly functioning legislature, some would have faced intense scrutiny, and others might not have made the list at all.
The deployment of this weak ambassadorial slate, arguably one of the weakest in recent memory, at a time when Nigeria desperately needs its best diplomatic minds, is deeply unsettling. Nigeria is facing reputational decline, economic challenges, security crises, and a diminishing global influence. These issues demand envoys of intellect, discipline, and credibility, not political rewardees or social media warriors.
Democracy relies on the executive, legislature, and judiciary to function properly. When one pillar fails, the entire structure is at risk. In this case, the legislature's failure to screen ambassadorial nominees properly could result in ill-equipped representatives being sent abroad, potentially damaging Nigeria's already fragile standing further.
The Senate's role is not to entertain nominees, flatter the executive, or trade jokes for the cameras. Its duty is to ask tough questions, demand clarity, and protect the national interest. Until the Senate reclaim its responsibility, scenes like Omokri's mockery will continue, not as exceptions but as defining moments of a chamber that has forgotten its purpose.
