Ugochinyere loses out as the House of Representatives restricts principal offices to lawmakers with full four-year legislative experience
The House of Representatives has clarified that only lawmakers who have completed at least one full four-year term in the Green Chamber are eligible for appointment as principal officers.
This comes amid growing controversy over the vacant minority leader position.
The resolution was adopted during plenary on Wednesday following a motion sponsored by Rep. Babajimi Benson seeking a precise interpretation of Order Seven, Rule 15 of the House Standing Orders.
The development comes against the backdrop of efforts to fill the minority leader position, which became vacant after the resignation of former Minority Leader, Rep. Kingsley Chinda, following his emergence as the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate for Rivers State.
The race for the position has generated controversy after reports emerged that 61 of the 81 opposition lawmakers had endorsed Rep. Ikenga Ugochinyere for the office, with a nomination letter reportedly submitted to Speaker Abbas Tajudeen ahead of a formal announcement.
However, the process was thrown into uncertainty after the Deputy House Spokesperson, Rep. Philip Agbese, publicly disowned the endorsement, alleging that his signature on the nomination document circulating online had been forged.
The dispute escalated during plenary last Thursday when Agbese raised a matter of personal privilege, claiming that his legislative rights had been violated through the alleged misuse of his signature, a development that briefly disrupted proceedings.
Against this backdrop, the House moved to provide a definitive interpretation of the eligibility requirements for principal officers.
Presenting the motion, Benson noted that Order Seven, Rule 15 of the Standing Orders stipulates that only members with “cognate legislative experience as Members of the House of Representatives” are eligible for appointment as principal officers.
He argued that parliamentary practice across democratic legislatures reserves such leadership positions for experienced lawmakers in order to preserve institutional memory, strengthen legislative competence and ensure continuity in parliamentary administration.
The lawmaker also pointed to the recent position adopted by the Senate, which defines cognate legislative experience as having completed at least one full four-year term, while requiring returning lawmakers with multiple previous terms to have served in the immediate past assembly.
According to him, adopting a similar interpretation in the House would promote stability, deepen institutional knowledge, minimise avoidable disputes and enhance Nigeria’s representation in international parliamentary engagements.
Following deliberations, the House resolved that the term “cognate legislative experience” under Order Seven, Rule 15 should be interpreted to mean members who have completed at least one full four-year term in the House of Representatives.
The lawmakers further declared that no other interpretation of the provision would be recognised, effectively setting a clear benchmark for eligibility to occupy principal leadership positions in the chamber.
 However, the proposal drew opposition from Rep. Bob Solomon, who argued that the motion was unnecessary because the House Standing Orders already empower the Speaker to interpret its provisions.
Contributing to the debate, Solomon cited Order Seven, Rule 1(10) of the House Standing Orders, insisting that the speaker, as the presiding officer and arbiter of the chamber, already possesses the authority to resolve any ambiguity in the rules.
“You are under Order Seven. Order Seven, Rule 1, Sub-Rule 10, has already conferred on you the power to interpret the rules. You are there as an arbiter. This motion is totally redundant and not necessary,” he said.
According to the lawmaker, adopting the motion would effectively amount to amending the rules by limiting the speaker’s constitutional authority to interpret them.
“What it means is that we are amending our rules for you to be able to exercise that power. Henceforth, if any person comes here for interpretation, we will have to first seek the House’s resolution to ask you to interpret the contentious provision in our rule.
“You have that power. You are in the position of a judge, an arbiter. What you say about the rules is final.
“This motion, for me, is not necessary. We are, in fact, rescinding your powers to interpret the rules,” Solomon argued.
