Last week, the House of Representatives Committee on Federal Character ordered an immediate suspension of all recruitment activities by the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) and threatened sanctions against its Executive Chairman, Dr. Zach Adedeji. The action stems from his failure to honor multiple legislative invitations and submit an updated nominal roll.
The lawmakers noted that Adedeji had previously ignored at least seven formal letters and requests sent between October 2023 and April 2026. The committee threatened to invoke Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, which grant the National Assembly powers to summon witnesses, compel document production, and issue arrest warrants.
Also, Senators recently intensified warnings against defiant bodies like the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, threatening budgetary withholding and arrest warrants for continuous non-compliance. The Senate subsequently directed the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and supervising ministers to ensure that agencies under their control respect and obey lawful legislative invitations.
The regular failure of Chief Executives and Heads of Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) to obey summons from the National Assembly can be attributed to a lack of strict enforcement of penalties, perceived political protection, and ongoing legal debates over the limits of legislative oversight.
The repeated refusal by MDAs to honour invitations from the National Assembly is a disturbing sign of administrative arrogance and democratic indiscipline. This is no harmless display of bureaucratic obstinacy. It is a direct challenge to the constitutional order and, by extension, to the sovereignty of the Nigerian people.
The National Assembly is not merely a forum for debating bills and approving budgets. It is a constitutional institution entrusted with overseeing the executive, scrutinizing public expenditure, and demanding accountability from those who administer public affairs. When MDAs treat legislative invitations with contempt, they are not simply disrespecting lawmakers—they are undermining one of the central pillars of constitutional democracy.
Legislative oversight does not end when an appropriation bill is signed into law. The authorization of public funds carries a corresponding constitutional duty to ensure those funds are spent lawfully, efficiently, and for their intended purpose. Oversight is neither a favour extended to legislators nor a political inconvenience to be brushed aside. It is an indispensable safeguard against abuse, waste, and impunity. Any agency eager to receive public funds must be equally prepared to account for them.
This growing pattern of defiance should alarm every Nigerian. It sends the dangerous message that public institutions can selectively obey the Constitution. Left unchecked, such conduct weakens the doctrine of checks and balances, emboldens impunity, and erodes public confidence in the rule of law.
This is not a matter of mere protocol or institutional courtesy; it is about constitutional supremacy. In a constitutional democracy, no ministry, department, agency, or public official is above the law. When the National Assembly summons a public institution in the lawful exercise of its oversight powers, it does not act on behalf of individual legislators—it exercises authority delegated by the Constitution on behalf of the Nigerian people.
The irony is striking. Many of these agencies were established to safeguard the public interest, regulate critical sectors, and deliver essential services. Yet some now operate as though they owe no explanation to the very institutions constitutionally empowered to oversee them. Such an attitude is fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance. Public office is a public trust, not a shield against scrutiny.
The National Assembly, for its part, must not retreat in the face of persistent defiance. It must stand firm, demand compliance with lawful invitations, and, where necessary, invoke the full weight of its constitutional powers to enforce its mandate. To do otherwise is to legitimize contempt and deepen a culture of institutional impunity.
The executive branch also bears a heavy responsibility. Ministers and supervising authorities must ensure that agencies under their purview respect constitutional processes. Silence or tolerance in the face of repeated disobedience undermines the executive’s own credibility and raises troubling questions about its commitment to transparency.
Ultimately, this issue transcends a mere friction between Parliament and the bureaucracy. It strikes at a fundamental question: is Nigeria governed by the Constitution, or by institutional convenience? If public agencies can ignore constitutional oversight without consequence, the signal is unmistakable—that constitutional obligations are optional, accountability is negotiable, and public institutions can operate beyond democratic control. That is a perilous precedent for any republic.
The time has come to reaffirm a simple constitutional truth: respecting the National Assembly is respecting the Constitution. Accountability is not discretionary; it is mandatory.
The legislature must remain resolute. The executive must enforce discipline within its ranks. And every public institution must recognize that legitimacy derives not from authority alone, but from unwavering fidelity to the Constitution.
When an MDA defies the National Assembly, it does not merely insult Parliament. It diminishes the authority of the Constitution, disrespects the Nigerian people, and casts a stain on the administration it represents. Public institutions cannot demand public confidence while showing contempt for constitutional accountability. Nigeria needs stronger institutions, not defiant bureaucracies; greater transparency, not official excuses; and public servants who understand that constitutional obedience is the absolute bedrock of democratic governance.