Senators Abaribe, Umeh Criticize Senate’s Rejection of Motion to Immortalize Humphrey Nwosu
On Wednesday, March 26, 2025, the Nigerian Senate witnessed a contentious and highly debated motion that sought to honor the late Professor Humphrey Nwosu, the former Chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), now known as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The motion, which aimed to immortalize Nwosu for his pivotal role in Nigeria’s democratic evolution, specifically for his leadership during the June 12, 1993 presidential election, was unexpectedly rejected. The vote, which unfolded during a tense session in the Senate, left many lawmakers, particularly those from the opposition, in disbelief. Senators Eyinnaya Abaribe (APGA-Abia South) and Victor Umeh (Anambra Central) were among the most vocal critics of the Senate’s decision, lamenting the loss of an opportunity to honor one of the nation’s true heroes.
YOU MAY READ
Senator Umeh Flags Off The Construction Of 6-Classroom Block In Ifitedunu
The motion, proposed by Senator Abaribe, was brought under Senate Orders 41 and 51, which are typically invoked to raise matters of national importance. The motion’s objective was clear: to immortalize Professor Humphrey Nwosu for his immense contribution to Nigeria’s electoral integrity, specifically his role in overseeing the June 12, 1993 presidential election, an election that remains a hallmark of credibility in Nigeria’s fraught electoral history. Nwosu, at the helm of the NEC during that time, ensured the smooth conduct of the election, which, despite being annulled by the military regime, remains widely regarded as the freest and fairest election in the country’s history.
To fully understand the importance of the motion, one must first reflect on the historical significance of the June 12, 1993 election. The election, which was supposed to mark the transition from military rule to democracy, saw the late Moshood Abiola, a businessman and politician, win the presidency in a landslide. However, the election results were annulled by then-military ruler General Ibrahim Babangida, sparking widespread protests and a prolonged period of political instability.
In the face of the annulment, Professor Nwosu’s leadership of the NEC stood out as a beacon of electoral transparency. His commitment to overseeing a fair and credible process was widely acknowledged, and many see him as one of the few public officials who remained steadfast in the defense of democratic values, even as the military regime sought to undermine those very principles. This context made the proposal to immortalize Nwosu not just an acknowledgment of his service but a reaffirmation of Nigeria’s democratic ideals.iled to pass. This rejection sent ripples of disappointment throughout the chamber, particularly among those who had hoped the Senate would seize the opportunity to honor the late electoral commissioner.
When the motion was put to a vote on the Senate floor, it was swiftly rejected. The ‘nays’ prevailed during the voice vote, and the motion failed to pass. This rejection sent ripples of disappointment throughout the chamber, particularly among those who had hoped the Senate would seize the opportunity to honor the late electoral commissioner.
Senator Abaribe, the sponsor of the motion, expressed his frustration in the aftermath of the vote. In a visibly emotional tone, he questioned the rationale behind the rejection. “Mr. President, I don’t see what is controversial about immortalizing Humphrey Nwosu. That is our problem—what exactly is controversial about it?” Abaribe’s remarks highlighted the irony of the situation—here was a man who had contributed immensely to the nation’s democratic process, yet his efforts were being ignored by the very institution tasked with safeguarding democracy.
Abaribe’s frustration was compounded by the fact that Nwosu’s passing was imminent, with the late electoral commissioner scheduled to be buried just days later, making the motion all the more timely. “This motion is not only timely, but it is a fitting tribute to someone who helped defend the integrity of our electoral system. How is this controversial?” Abaribe continued, visibly upset that the motion had been rejected without a robust debate or consideration.
The rejection, however, did not occur without significant opposition from within the Senate itself. Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele (APC-Ekiti) argued that Senator Abaribe had failed to adhere to the proper procedures required to raise a matter of urgent public importance. Bamidele pointed out that the Senate’s schedule had already passed the window for such matters to be brought up, meaning Abaribe should have formally reintroduced the motion on the next legislative day.
According to Bamidele, the issue was not about the merit of the motion itself but about the procedural flaw in the way it was presented. “The timing for raising matters of urgent public importance has passed,” Bamidele explained, urging the Senate to stick to its rules and processes. His remarks highlighted the fine line between the procedural order of the Senate and the substantive matters at hand, with some senators arguing that procedural concerns were being used to dismiss what should have been a matter of national significance.
In contrast, Senator Yahaya Abdullahi (PDP-Kebbi) provided a sharp rebuttal to Bamidele’s stance. Abdullahi, speaking in defense of the motion, warned that denying senators the right to raise personal explanations or points of order at any time would set a “dangerous precedent.” He emphasized that the rules governing parliamentary procedure must not be used as a tool to suppress legitimate discussions, especially when they concern matters of national importance. Abdullahi’s remarks added fuel to the fire, with several senators rallying behind his call for the Senate to allow debates to occur freely without unnecessary procedural barriers.
The rejection of the motion to immortalize Nwosu also raised questions about the broader political climate in Nigeria. Critics of the Senate’s decision argued that the rejection was emblematic of the nation’s failure to honor its heroes, particularly those who fought for democracy in the face of adversity. Many saw the decision as a missed opportunity to recognize the sacrifices made by individuals like Nwosu, who played a key role in the country’s democratic transition, only to be overshadowed by political expediency and procedural technicalities.
For many Nigerians, particularly those who lived through the June 12 struggle, Nwosu’s legacy is one of integrity and courage. His role in the 1993 election and his steadfast defense of the electoral process have earned him respect across the political spectrum. Therefore, the Senate’s failure to recognize Nwosu’s contributions to the nation’s democracy struck a chord with critics, who believed that the country was once again missing an opportunity to right the wrongs of its political past.
In a powerful statement made later in the day on Channels Television’s Politics Today, Senator Victor Umeh (PDP-Anambra Central) condemned the Senate’s actions as unjust. He argued that the rejection of the motion was undemocratic, particularly given the timing of the proposal. “This motion came today at the most timely moment because he will be buried on Friday, two days away. Shutting down the motion the way it was done this morning is very undemocratic,” Umeh said, expressing his disappointment with the way the motion had been handled.
YOU MAY READ
Akpabio Tried To Silence Me For Opposing Tinubu’s Emergency Rule In Rivers – Seriake Dickson
Umeh’s comments not only underscored the significance of the motion itself but also pointed to a broader issue within Nigerian politics—the failure to properly honor those who have made substantial contributions to the country’s democratic journey. Nwosu, Umeh argued, had done everything in his power to ensure a credible electoral process during one of the most challenging periods in Nigeria’s history. To deny him the recognition he deserved was not just an oversight; it was a disservice to the very values that the Senate was supposed to uphold.
Moreover, Umeh criticized the treatment of Nwosu, who had overseen the annulled June 12 election, and reiterated that his contributions to the electoral process had been fundamental in shaping the democracy that Nigerians enjoy today. “The Senate should have allowed this motion to be debated. Such matters are routinely discussed in the chamber. This is about acknowledging the legacy of someone who fought for electoral transparency,” Umeh stated.
The rejection of the motion to immortalize Humphrey Nwosu raises important questions about Nigeria’s commitment to honoring its democratic icons. Nwosu’s role in the June 12 election was an example of leadership in the face of adversity, and his legacy should have been celebrated, not denied. The failure of the Senate to approve the motion is a stark reminder of the challenges Nigeria faces in truly acknowledging its history and the individuals who have shaped its democratic process.
While procedural concerns may have played a role in the motion’s rejection, the decision also reveals the deep divisions within Nigeria’s political landscape. The refusal to debate the motion or grant Nwosu the recognition he deserves is an unfortunate reflection of the difficulties that many face when trying to acknowledge and honor the nation’s past heroes.
As Nigerians await the burial of Professor Humphrey Nwosu, it is hoped that his legacy will be preserved in the hearts of the people, if not by the Senate. The question remains: will Nigeria ever fully embrace the contributions of those who fought for its democracy, or will the nation continue to overlook the sacrifices made by its true patriots?
In the end, the rejection of this motion may serve as a wake-up call for the Nigerian Senate to reflect on its priorities and the messages it sends to the Nigerian people. The hope is that in the future, the Senate will rise above procedural barriers and political considerations to honor the heroes who have truly shaped the nation’s democratic journey.