Reps in Rowdy Session Over Motion to Summon Tinubu Over 2025 Budget Delays

The House of Representatives was thrown into a heated rowdy session on Wednesday as lawmakers sharply disagreed over a controversial motion seeking to invite President Bola Tinubu to appear before the National Assembly to explain the slow implementation of the 2025 Appropriation Act and delays in funding for constituency projects. The chaotic scene unfolded during plenary after two separate motions raised concerns over a June 29 Treasury Circular issued by the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, which directed all federal Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to halt payment processing for constituency and Zonal Intervention Projects (ZIPs) unless they had first obtained a Certificate of Verification and Compliance from the Federal Ministry of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs. The directive, aimed at strengthening accountability and transparency in project implementation, was seen by some lawmakers as an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that would further stall already delayed budget execution.

The controversy began when Benedict Etanabene, the lawmaker representing Okpe/Sapele/Uvwie Federal Constituency of Delta State, raised a point of privilege over the Accountant-General’s circular. Etanabene argued that the directive could significantly undermine the implementation of projects already captured in the 2025 budget and frustrate lawmakers’ efforts to deliver constituency projects to their constituents. He urged the House to summon President Tinubu to explain the slow pace of budget implementation and the rationale behind the directive, insisting that the executive owed Nigerians and the National Assembly a clear explanation. A similar motion was then moved by Alex Mascot Ikwechegh (LP – Abia State), who specifically called for President Tinubu to appear before the House to address the persistent funding delays. Ikwechegh highlighted revelations made by ministers and heads of MDAs during ongoing 2026 budget defence sessions, which showed that several agencies received little or no capital releases throughout the 2025 fiscal year. He also cited repeated protests by indigenous contractors over unpaid certificates for completed projects, many of whom had been pushed to the brink of insolvency after borrowing from banks to execute government contracts. Ikwechegh further recalled that President Tinubu had, at a Federal Executive Council meeting in December 2025, directed the immediate settlement of verified contractor liabilities estimated at about N1.5 trillion. However, he argued that despite the presidential directive, releases to MDAs remained slow or non-existent. Heating up the debate, Ikwechegh proposed an amendment to suspend plenary for one week until the issue was resolved.

READ ALSO:

• Dangote launches free petrol delivery in Lagos, Abuja, five other states
• Appeal Court orders status quo in ISI hijab case, adjourns hearing to Oct. 7
• I may not be alive to contest, Peter Obi alleges systematic persecution

The proposal to summon the President immediately divided the House, with some lawmakers supporting the invitation, arguing that the President, as head of the executive arm of government, should account for the implementation of the national budget, while others strongly opposed the move. Among those who opposed the invitation was Yusuf Gagdi (APC – Plateau State), who argued there was no constitutional basis for summoning the President. He insisted that ministers and heads of MDAs were constitutionally responsible for budget execution and should instead be summoned to address the issues. Gagdi called for the motion to be divided so that lawmakers could vote separately on the controversial prayer to invite the President. His remarks triggered loud protests from members, leading to shouting matches across both sides of the chamber as lawmakers attempted to outshout one another. The heated exchanges disrupted proceedings for about 30 minutes, with some members chanting “Sit down! Sit down!” at their colleagues.

Amid the disorder, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas repeatedly called for order and eventually ruled against the motion. Abbas explained that the prayers contained in the motion as read on the floor differed from those contained in the document originally submitted by the sponsor, describing it as a deviation from the approved text. He declined requests to subject the controversial prayer to a separate vote, insisting that the House would proceed in line with its established rules and legislative procedures.

The June 29 circular issued by the Accountant-General’s office mandates all Accounting Officers, Directors, Heads of Finance and Accounts, and Internal Audit units across MDAs to reject any payment request for constituency projects that does not have the Ministry of Special Duties and Intergovernmental Affairs’ Certificate of Verification and Compliance. According to the circular, the decision followed observed lapses in compliance with an earlier circular issued by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation on September 20, 2023, which introduced revised guidelines for the implementation of constituency projects. The Treasury Office stated that the measure is aimed at tightening financial controls, improving transparency, and ensuring that public funds are released only for duly verified and approved projects. Constituency projects, officially known as Zonal Intervention Projects, are federal budget projects nominated by members of the National Assembly to address developmental needs in their constituencies. Over the years, the programme has come under increasing scrutiny for abandoned projects, duplication, poor execution, weak monitoring, and misuse of public funds.

The incident highlighted growing frustration among lawmakers over the pace of the 2025 budget implementation, delayed releases of capital funds to MDAs, and the mounting backlog of unpaid contractors—issues many legislators say are hampering infrastructure delivery and undermining public confidence in government spending. Earlier reports had indicated that the 2025 budget faced significant implementation challenges, with capital implementation only beginning in October 2025, several months after the budget was signed into law. Economic stakeholders had expressed worry over the delay in budget preparation and execution, with some describing the budgeting process as chaotic and uncoordinated.

Reps in Rowdy Session Over Motion to Summon Tinubu Over 2025 Budget Delays

Appeal Court orders status quo in ISI hijab case, adjourns hearing to Oct. 7

The Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan has ordered all parties to maintain the status quo in the legal dispute over the use of the hijab by Muslim female students at the International School, University of Ibadan (ISI), pending the hearing of an application for stay of execution.

The directive was issued on Wednesday by a three-member panel led by Justice K.I. Amadi while hearing an application for an injunction pending appeal and stay of execution filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC).

The appellate court also directed that no action should be taken to harass, intimidate or discipline the affected Muslim students pending the determination of the application, stressing that all parties must preserve the subject matter of the case until the court delivers its decision.

Justice Amadi questioned why steps had allegedly been taken to enforce the court’s earlier judgment when the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the ruling had not yet been released. The court noted that parties should refrain from actions capable of altering the existing situation once an application for stay of execution is before the court.

Following arguments from counsel representing all parties, the panel ordered that the existing situation be maintained and adjourned the matter until October 7, 2026, for the hearing of the application.

Court documents showed that the case, marked CA/IB/347/2024, was listed among the civil motions before the Ibadan Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal.

Counsel to MURIC, Hassan Taiwo Fajimite, urged the court to preserve the subject matter of the appeal by granting an injunction pending appeal and staying the execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment delivered on July 3.

READ ALSO:

• I may not be alive to contest, Peter Obi alleges systematic persecution
• El-Rufai’s Wives Beg Tinubu for Fair Treatment, Say Family Is Traumatised
• Senate Rejects Motion to Probe N1.3bn PFIPC Budget Amid Mounting Controversy 

According to him, neither the University of Ibadan nor the International School, University of Ibadan possesses the legal authority to prevent willing Muslim female students from wearing the hijab or subject them to disciplinary measures while the matter remains before the courts.

Fajimite further informed the court that MURIC intended to file a fresh application for stay of execution, explaining that the earlier application was no longer ripe for hearing following recent developments. Counsel representing the University of Ibadan and ISI did not oppose the request for an adjournment.

The latest order follows last Friday’s split judgment of the Court of Appeal, which overturned the earlier decision of the Oyo State High Court that had affirmed the constitutional right of willing Muslim female students to wear the hijab at the school.

In the majority judgment, the appellate court held that the International School, University of Ibadan is a private institution and that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision recognising the right of Muslim female students to wear the hijab applies only to public schools. The court also ruled that parents and students voluntarily accepted the school’s rules, including its dress code, upon admission.

However, one member of the panel delivered a dissenting judgment, maintaining that the appeal lacked merit and that the High Court’s decision should have been upheld.

The judgment generated widespread reactions from Muslim organisations across Nigeria. Shortly after the ruling, MURIC filed a Notice of Appeal at the Supreme Court, insisting that the International School should not be regarded as a private institution because it is owned and supervised by the University of Ibadan, a federally owned public university.

The organisation also warned against what it described as premature enforcement of the appellate court’s judgment, arguing that doing so could prejudice the pending appeal before the country’s highest court.

Tension briefly surfaced on Monday, the first school day after the judgment, when some Muslim female students wearing the hijab were reportedly stopped by security personnel at the school’s gate before eventually being allowed into the premises after intervention by parents and other stakeholders.

Wednesday’s order is expected to temporarily calm tensions by preserving the existing situation until the Court of Appeal hears MURIC’s application on October 7. The substantive legal battle over the use of the hijab at the International School, University of Ibadan is, however, expected to continue before the Supreme Court, whose eventual decision could have far-reaching implications for dress code policies and the balance between institutional regulations and constitutional rights in educational institutions across Nigeria.

Appeal Court orders status quo in ISI hijab case, adjourns hearing to Oct. 7

Man Seeks Divorce Over Wife’s Alleged Refusal to Fund Daughter’s Treatment

A Nigerian man has stirred widespread reactions on social media after revealing that he decided to end his marriage because his wife allegedly refused to contribute ₦24,000 towards their daughter’s medical treatment despite having more than ₦600,000 in her bank account.

The man made the revelation while appearing on TheJusticeCourt, where he recounted the circumstances that led to the breakdown of the marriage.

According to him, the incident occurred when their daughter fell ill and required urgent medical attention. He explained that he was at the hospital with the child but had no money to settle the medical bill, forcing him to wait for financial assistance from his brother, who was outside Nigeria.

He said that, despite his financial challenges, he had consistently taken responsibility for providing for his family, ensuring there was food on the table and other household needs were met.

The man stated that because he had always catered for the family’s expenses, it never crossed his mind to ask his wife for financial support during the medical emergency.

“I was in the hospital with my daughter, and I didn’t have money. I had to wait for my brother, who wasn’t in Nigeria, to send me money. A day before, I had even struggled to send her money for food at work,” he said.

He alleged that he later discovered his wife had more than ₦600,000 in her bank account at the time of the incident but chose not to assist with the ₦24,000 needed to treat their daughter.

According to him, the discovery left him deeply disappointed and changed his perception of the marriage.

He further claimed that after he confiscated his wife’s phone during the disagreement, she purchased another mobile device worth ₦319,000, a development he said reinforced his decision to seek a divorce.

“When I later discovered she had more than ₦600,000 in her account, I was shocked. She even bought another phone for ₦319,000 after I seized her old one. That was when I knew I couldn’t continue the marriage,” he alleged.

The man’s account has since gone viral across social media platforms, generating heated debate over financial transparency, trust and shared responsibilities in marriage.

While many users sympathised with him, arguing that spouses should support each other, particularly during emergencies involving their children, others maintained that the public had only heard one side of the story and cautioned against rushing to conclusions without hearing the wife’s response.

The incident has reignited discussions on the importance of open communication about finances, mutual support, and partnership in marriage, with many Nigerians expressing differing opinions on the responsibilities of husbands and wives during periods of financial hardship.