Omokri’s Mockery of Akpabio’s Senate, by Emmanuel Aziken,
For a Senate that has not only in herited but arguably worsened its predecessor’s reputation as a rubber stamp, the scene that played out during the screening of President Bola Tinubu’s ambassadorial nominees was bound to be bewildering. Yet, even by Nigeria’s increasingly elastic standards of legislative conduct, what unfolded in Senate Committee Room 211 last Thursday was astonishing.
Already dogged by public perception as an assembly that approves executive requests almost by reflex—sometimes even before the paperwork metaphorically lands—the Senate sank to a new low when two senators openly clashed, not over the competence or suitability of a nominee, but over who would get the honour of praising him first.
The nominee at the centre of this unedifying spectacle was Reno Omokri—a former presidential aide, political itinerant, and serial partisan who has traversed Nigeria’s political spectrum with remarkable agility. Once a close ally of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Omokri later reinvented himself as an ardent defender of Peter Obi before finally emerging as an unofficial spokesman and fierce defender of Atiku Abubakar. In each phase, he was unsparing in his attacks on Bola Tinubu, deploying language so virulent that much of it would be unprintable in a responsible company.
Yet here was the same Omokri standing serenely before the Senate, not subjected to rigorous interrogation about ideological consistency, temperament, or suitability for diplomatic service, but instead becoming the unlikely beneficiary of a public scuffle between Senator Ali Ndume and Senator Adams Oshiomhole.
Senator Ndume, in what he likely considered a procedural motion, suggested that Omokri be allowed to “bow and go”—the euphemism that has come to define the Senate’s abdication of its constitutional duty to screen nominees. Under Senate rules, such a motion ought to be seconded and resolved before any other intervention. However, Senator Oshiomhole either misunderstood the procedure or chose to ignore it, apparently perceiving the motion as a threat to his opportunity to extol the nominee and, by extension, President Tinubu.
What followed was a jocular but deeply embarrassing exchange, played out live, in full public glare, and in the very presence of Omokri himself—who could hardly have missed the irony. If mockery had a physical form, it would have been seated quietly at the witness table that day as Omokri looked down scornfully on the senators and especially those from the Southeast whose tribe he had not too long ago joyfully assailed at the easiest opportunity.
This episode captured, in one vivid tableau, the depth to which the Senate under its current leadership has descended. Rather than interrogate Omokri’s fitness for diplomatic office—his ideological volatility, his past vilification of large segments of the country, his history of incendiary commentary—the senators competed in praise-singing, apparently convinced that public loyalty displays would curry favour with the President.
The practice of “bow and go,” which has been generously extended even to former governors and serving or former lawmakers, is itself an anachronism in a democracy that aspires to maturity. Screening is not a courtesy call; it is a constitutional safeguard. The fact that someone once held elective office does not immunise them from scrutiny, especially when questions linger about their performance in previous assignments.
How does a democracy justify asking a former governor or legislator—some of whom left behind trails of failed policies, abandoned projects, or unresolved controversies—to simply bow and go without a single probing question? What message does that send about accountability, competence, and public trust?
Comparative democratic practice makes Nigeria’s situation even more troubling.
Your correspondent recalls that in 2009, when President Barack Obama nominated Senator Hillary Clinton—herself a sitting U.S. senator—to serve as Secretary of State, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subjected her to two full days of rigorous hearings. She was grilled on policy positions, past votes, ethical issues, and strategic vision. Only after that did her nomination proceed to the full Senate, where it took several more days of debate before confirmation.
At no point was Clinton told to “bow and go.” Her prior service in the Senate was not treated as a waiver of scrutiny but as a reason for even higher expectations. Not even the fact that she was also a former First Lady was reckoned with in exempting her from interrogation.
Against that backdrop, the spectacle of Nigerian senators squabbling over praise time while nominees escape serious questioning is not merely embarrassing—it is dangerous.
Reno Omokri’s moment of silent mockery was not an isolated incident. Several nominees on the ambassadorial list raised serious questions about competence, relevance, or suitability. In a properly functioning legislature, some would have faced intense scrutiny; others might not have made the list at all.
That this list—arguably one of the weakest ambassadorial slates Nigeria has produced in recent memory—is being deployed at a time when the country desperately needs its best diplomatic minds is deeply unsettling. Nigeria is grappling with reputational decline, economic headwinds, security crises, and diminishing global influence. These challenges demand envoys of intellect, discipline, restraint, and credibility—not political rewardees or social media warriors.
Democracy, it is often said, rests on three pillars: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Each has a defined role, and when one fails, the entire structure wobbles. In this case, the legislature’s failure to properly screen ambassadorial nominees risks sending ill-equipped representatives abroad—individuals whose actions or utterances could further damage Nigeria’s already fragile standing.
The Senate’s job is not to entertain nominees, flatter the executive, or trade jokes under the television lights. Its duty is to ask hard questions, demand clarity, and protect the national interest.
Until that responsibility is reclaimed, scenes like Omokri’s mockery of Akpabio’s Senate will continue—not as exceptions, but as defining moments of a chamber that has forgotten why it exists.
The post Omokri’s Mockery of Akpabio’s Senate, by Emmanuel Aziken appeared first on Vanguard News.
,
For a Senate that has not only in herited but arguably worsened its predecessor’s reputation as a rubber stamp, the scene that played out during the screening of President Bola Tinubu’s ambassadorial nominees was bound to be bewildering. Yet, even by Nigeria’s increasingly elastic standards of legislative conduct, what unfolded in Senate Committee Room 211 last […]
The post Omokri’s Mockery of Akpabio’s Senate, by Emmanuel Aziken appeared first on Vanguard News.
, , Emmanuel Okogba, {authorlink},, , Vanguard News, December 13, 2025, 1:46 am
