Nigeria’s National Assembly has often been described as a theatre where politics, ambition, ideology, and personality collide. Yet few confrontations in recent Senate history have captured public attention as vividly as the ongoing rivalry between Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Adams Oshiomhole. What many observers have labelled the “rat and cat” contest is more than a clash of two strong personalities. It is a revealing case study of power, institutional authority, political ego, and the struggle for influence within Nigeria’s ruling establishment.
The confrontation between the two politicians has transformed Senate proceedings from routine legislative business into a fascinating display of political maneuvering. While Akpabio represents the authority of the institution, Oshiomhole embodies resistance against what he perceives as the excessive concentration of power. Their conflict illustrates a timeless political reality: institutions may be governed by rules, but they are often shaped by personalities.
The rivalry becomes more intriguing when one considers the political backgrounds of both actors.
Senator Adams Oshiomhole rose to national prominence as President of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), where he built a reputation as a fearless advocate for workers’ rights.
His confrontational style, honed through years of labour activism, later defined his tenure as Governor of Edo State and subsequently as National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Senate President Godswill Akpabio followed a different route to power. A former Commissioner, Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, and Senate Minority Leader, Akpabio cultivated a reputation as a political strategist skilled in coalition building and elite negotiations. Unlike Oshiomhole’s activist approach, Akpabio’s political success has largely depended on consensus-building, patronage networks, and institutional maneuvering.
Political scientists often distinguish between “mobilization politicians” and “institutional politicians.” Oshiomhole belongs to the first category; Akpabio to the second. Their current conflict is therefore not accidental it reflects fundamentally different approaches to acquiring and exercising power.
The Rule Amendment That Sparked a Firestorm
The latest chapter of their rivalry emerged following the amendment of Orders 4 and 5 of the Senate Standing Rules. Conducted in a closed-door session, the amendment stipulated that only senators who had served two consecutive terms immediately preceding nomination could contest for principal offices.
Although Senate leadership defended the move as an effort to preserve legislative experience and continuity, critics interpreted it differently. Many viewed it as an attempt to narrow the field of future contenders for Senate leadership positions.
Oshiomhole immediately challenged the amendment, describing it as a “moral crisis” and an example of political manipulation. His objection was not merely procedural; it touched on a larger democratic principle. Can political rules be altered in ways that appear to favour certain actors while excluding others?
This question has haunted democratic institutions worldwide. From the United States Congress to the British Parliament, scholars of constitutional governance have consistently argued that rules must not only be legal but must also be perceived as legitimate.
Political theorist John Rawls famously argued that institutions derive stability from public confidence in the fairness of their procedures. Once actors begin to suspect that rules are designed to benefit a few individuals, trust in the institution begins to erode.
The dispute reached its dramatic peak during Senate plenary when Oshiomhole attempted to challenge the amendment through a point of order.
Akpabio ruled him out of order, citing procedural limitations. Oshiomhole refused to back down. Even after his microphone was muted, he continued to protest.
The exchange culminated in Akpabio’s widely publicized warning:
“If you become unruly, we will use the rules to take you out of the Senate.”
The statement revealed the essence of parliamentary power. Legislative leaders possess significant authority over procedure, recognition, debate, and discipline.
Political scientists refer to this as “agenda control” the ability of leaders to determine who speaks, when they speak, and what issues receive attention.
For Oshiomhole, however, silence was not an option. His political identity has always been rooted in challenging authority. In labour struggles, on campaign platforms, and within party politics, confrontation has often been his preferred instrument.
Thus, the Senate chamber became less a legislative forum and more a symbolic battleground between institutional authority and political rebellion.
Ego, Ambition, and the Human Side of Politics
Beyond procedural disagreements lies a more personal dimension.
Political institutions are ultimately run by human beings, and human beings possess ambitions, insecurities, loyalties, and rivalries.
Oshiomhole’s assertion that Akpabio is “paranoid” about him points to a deeper trust deficit. Meanwhile, Akpabio’s repeated references to discipline and order suggest a leadership style focused on maintaining authority.
History shows that many legislative crises are driven as much by personality as by policy.
The rivalry between former Senate Presidents Chuba Okadigbo and Evans Enwerem in the Fourth Republic, as well as the tensions between Bukola Saraki and elements within the executive branch, demonstrate how personal relationships often shape institutional outcomes.
The Akpabio-Oshiomhole dispute fits squarely within this tradition.
The Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Factor
The controversy surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan further deepened divisions within the Senate.
Oshiomhole’s claims regarding signatures attached to committee reports generated public debate and media scrutiny. Although he later clarified his comments and expressed regret for any misunderstanding, the episode exposed underlying tensions within the Senate.
The controversy highlighted a broader issue facing many legislatures across Africa: transparency in disciplinary proceedings.
When disciplinary actions are perceived as politically motivated rather than procedurally neutral, institutional legitimacy suffers.
APC’s Internal Power Struggle
To view the conflict solely as a Senate dispute would be misleading.
The confrontation also reflects ongoing competition within the ruling APC.
As Nigeria gradually moves toward the 2027 political cycle, various power centres are positioning themselves for influence. Leadership contests within the National Assembly often serve as indicators of future alignments within the broader political landscape.
Historically, control of the Senate has been a strategic asset in Nigerian politics. Senate Presidents have frequently emerged as national power brokers, influencing party dynamics, legislative priorities, and presidential succession calculations.
Observers therefore interpret the Akpabio-Oshiomhole confrontation not merely as a disagreement over parliamentary procedure but as part of a wider struggle over future political influence.
The Rat and the Cat: A Useful Metaphor?
The popular “rat and cat” analogy resonates because it captures the asymmetry of power.
The cat possesses formal authority, controls territory, and enforces order. The rat survives through persistence, agility, and disruption.
Yet political reality is more complex.
Akpabio is not merely an enforcer; he is also a coalition builder whose survival depends on maintaining Senate support. Oshiomhole is not merely a dissenter; he is a seasoned political strategist capable of mobilizing opinion both inside and outside the chamber.
In democratic institutions, both roles are necessary. Authority without accountability risks authoritarianism. Opposition without responsibility risks instability.
The health of a legislature depends on balancing these competing forces.
Lessons for Nigerian Democracy.
The Akpabio-Oshiomhole saga offers important lessons for Nigerian democracy.
First, institutions must ensure that rules are perceived as fair and impartial.
Second, political leaders must recognize that dissent is not necessarily disloyalty.
Democratic systems thrive when opposing views are accommodated rather than suppressed.
Third, personal rivalries should not overshadow legislative responsibilities. Nigerians expect the Senate to address pressing national concerns such as inflation, insecurity, unemployment, energy challenges, and constitutional reforms.
The danger is that prolonged internal battles may divert attention from these critical issues.
The confrontation between Godswill Akpabio and Adams Oshiomhole is more than a political quarrel. It is a contest over authority, legitimacy, ambition, and the future direction of Senate leadership.
History suggests that political rivalries rarely end through outright victory. More often, they conclude through compromise, changing alliances, or shifting political circumstances.
Whether Akpabio and Oshiomhole eventually reconcile or continue their confrontation, their rivalry has already become one of the defining political dramas of Nigeria’s 10th Senate.
In the end, the real question is not whether the rat can outsmart the cat or whether the cat can silence the rat.
The more important question is whether Nigeria’s democratic institutions will emerge stronger from the contest or become yet another casualty of elite political warfare.
Cliff Stanley
Political Scientist /Analyst
Cliffstanley3@gmail.com 07032826319.
