BREAKING: House Of Reps Threatens Member, Asks Him To Provide Evidence Of Paying ₦3 Million To Sponsor Bills
The Nigerian House of Representatives was thrown into controversy on Friday after a viral video surfaced in which Hon. Ibrahim Usman Auyo, representing Hadejia, Auyo, and Kafin Hausa Federal Constituency of Jigawa State, alleged that lawmakers pay between ₦1 million and ₦3 million to sponsor motions, bills, and petitions in the National Assembly.
In response, the House issued a strongly worded statement, warning Auyo that he risks being dragged before its Committee on Ethics and Privileges unless he provides concrete evidence to substantiate his claims. The development has sparked outrage among Nigerians, rekindling public skepticism about the integrity of the nation’s legislature.
Hon. Auyo, popularly known by his nickname “Kamfani,” made the explosive claims in a Hausa-language video that went viral on social media earlier this week. Speaking directly to his constituents, the lawmaker denied suggestions that motions presented in the House were a direct reflection of the needs of Nigerians. He alleged instead that the legislative process is financially driven, insisting that every motion, bill, or petition requires a payment before it can be entertained.
“Since I went to the Assembly, it’s not true that someone wrote a motion for their need or others to be presented before the House. It’s all false. And if at all there is, anybody should come out to challenge me,” he said in Hausa.
Auyo went further to claim that bills and petitions attract hefty payments. He said, “Even the bills and petitions are paid for. You have to pay ₦3 million, ₦2 million, or ₦1 million for it to be read on the floor of the House. After you read the bill, you have to lobby over 360 lawmakers to support that the bill be considered.”
His comments, though not the first time Nigerian legislators have been accused of corruption, struck a raw nerve because they came from a sitting member openly admitting that what is supposed to be a transparent democratic process is allegedly tainted by systemic bribery.
Within hours, the House Spokesperson, Akin Rotimi, issued a statement rejecting the allegations and demanding that Hon. Auyo produce evidence. Rotimi said the House of Representatives had taken note of the viral video and warned that such allegations, if left unclarified, risk undermining public confidence in the National Assembly. He added that statements of this nature must be backed by verifiable facts and presented through the appropriate parliamentary channels.
The statement emphasized that the National Assembly is an institution of records, with well-established and transparent procedures for introducing bills, motions, and petitions, governed by the constitution, House Standing Orders, and parliamentary ethics. Rotimi dismissed the insinuation that sponsoring a bill or motion is a contract-like transaction involving bribes, saying it is inconsistent with the procedures that lawmakers follow.
According to him, once the House reconvenes, Auyo will be formally invited to substantiate his claims. Should he fail to provide evidence, the matter will be referred to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges for investigation and possible sanctions.
YOU MAY READ
Reps Propose Single-Day Election in 2027 Under Sweeping Electoral Act 2025 Reform
Hon. Ibrahim Usman Auyo, who represents one of Jigawa State’s key constituencies, is relatively new in the House, elected in 2023 under the All Progressives Congress platform. Known locally as “Kamfani,” he built his reputation as a grassroots mobilizer before venturing into politics. His frank, sometimes combative style has won him admirers among constituents who see him as unafraid to challenge the establishment. However, critics argue that his comments often lack discretion and may expose him to disciplinary measures in the highly hierarchical environment of the National Assembly.
This latest controversy has placed him at the center of a storm that could either cement his reputation as a whistleblower or destroy his credibility if he fails to substantiate his allegations. The viral video and the House’s response quickly became the subject of heated debate nationwide. On social media, Nigerians expressed mixed feelings. Some hailed Auyo for “telling the truth out loud,” arguing that he only confirmed what many Nigerians have long suspected about corruption in the legislature. Others questioned his motives, suggesting he may be seeking cheap popularity or trying to shield himself from criticism by deflecting blame onto the institution. A number of commentators demanded an independent probe, warning that dismissing his claims outright could further erode public trust in the National Assembly.
One X user wrote: “Hon. Auyo only said what we already know. Motions and bills are not passed on merit but on money and lobbying. The House should investigate itself instead of threatening him.” Another argued: “If he has no evidence, then he is irresponsible for making such serious claims. He must either present proof or resign.”
The Nigerian legislature has long faced accusations of corruption, ranging from budget padding to constituency project racketeering. In 2016, former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Abdulmumin Jibrin accused then-Speaker Yakubu Dogara and others of inflating the budget. In 2020, a House probe into Niger Delta Development Commission corruption also exposed legislators to scrutiny. While many of these allegations have faded without decisive prosecutions, they have contributed to a perception of the National Assembly as one of the most opaque arms of government. Auyo’s claims, though lacking formal evidence so far, tap into this deep well of public skepticism.
For the House of Representatives, the stakes are high. The institution’s legitimacy rests on the perception that it represents Nigerians fairly, transparently, and constitutionally. Allegations that bills and motions are essentially “for sale” undermine that legitimacy. If the claims are ignored, they risk being taken as confirmation of wrongdoing. If aggressively pursued without transparency, critics may see it as an attempt to silence whistleblowers. Either way, the House faces a credibility crisis.
The Committee on Ethics and Privileges, chaired by members tasked with upholding the dignity of the legislature, now carries the burden of demonstrating impartiality. Should it investigate, Nigerians will be watching closely to see whether Auyo’s claims are scrutinized with seriousness or dismissed as political theater.
If Auyo’s allegations are true, it would mean that Nigeria’s legislative process is not only compromised by political lobbying but also structurally corrupted by financial gatekeeping. That would call into question the legitimacy of countless bills, motions, and petitions passed in recent years. Even if proven false, the mere existence of such allegations damages confidence in parliament. It reinforces the belief that Nigerian democracy is elitist, transactional, and disconnected from the needs of ordinary citizens.
If the House refers Auyo to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges and he fails to substantiate his claims, he could face a range of penalties. These may include a formal reprimand on the floor of the House, suspension from plenary sittings for a specified period, loss of committee memberships, or, in extreme cases, expulsion, though this is rare and politically contentious. Observers note that the handling of this case will set an important precedent. It will either signal that the House is committed to defending its reputation through accountability or that it is more interested in silencing dissenting voices.
The controversy highlights a deeper challenge for Nigeria’s democracy: the widening gulf between citizens and their representatives. With widespread poverty, unemployment, and insecurity, Nigerians increasingly view the National Assembly as self-serving. Auyo’s allegations, whether factual or not, resonate because they align with public frustration over a political class seen as detached from everyday realities.
Analysts argue that this moment could become a turning point. If the House embraces transparency by allowing an open inquiry, it could begin the slow process of rebuilding trust. But if it dismisses or punishes Auyo without due process, it risks deepening cynicism and fueling populist anger.
The firestorm surrounding Hon. Ibrahim Usman Auyo’s claims has exposed the fragile legitimacy of Nigeria’s legislature. Whether he emerges as a whistleblower or a cautionary tale will depend on the evidence he presents and how the House chooses to handle the matter. What is certain is that this controversy has forced the National Assembly into the spotlight once again, compelling Nigerians to confront uncomfortable questions about the cost, conduct, and credibility of their democracy.
Until Auyo substantiates his words, his video remains an allegation. But its impact on public discourse is undeniable, a reminder that in a country where trust in institutions is low, even unverified claims can carry the weight of truth in the court of public opinion.