The relationship between Nigeria’s executive and legislature has always been defined by an uneasy balance. While the National Assembly makes laws and approves public spending, it is equally empowered to investigate how Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) utilise public resources.
That constitutional responsibility is exercised largely through committee hearings, investigative probes and oversight visits.
Increasingly, however, those powers are being tested.
Across both chambers of the National Assembly, a worrying pattern has emerged in recent months: ministers, chief executives of government agencies and heads of government-owned enterprises are either ignoring invitations from lawmakers, sending junior officials in their place or failing to submit requested documents.
What once appeared to be isolated incidents has now become a recurring feature of legislative oversight, prompting lawmakers to openly question whether government institutions still regard parliamentary summons with the seriousness they deserve.
The development has exposed what many lawmakers describe as a dangerous erosion of the legislature’s authority and has reignited debate about whether the National Assembly has become reluctant to fully exercise its constitutional powers.
A Pattern Too Frequent to Ignore
One of the most recent examples occurred during the Senate Public Accounts Committee’s investigation into the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) Audit Reports.
The committee invited several key institutions-including the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and other agencies-to explain issues arising from the audit reports.
Rather than appear before the committee, many of the invited agencies simply stayed away without prior notice or explanation.
Lawmakers described the action as a direct affront to the Senate and warned that persistent refusal to honour invitations undermines transparency and accountability. The committee eventually resolved to issue a final invitation before invoking constitutional powers to compel attendance.
The Senate’s frustration was not limited to that investigation.
Earlier, the upper chamber debated a motion on the persistent refusal of Ministries, Departments and Agencies and Government-Owned Enterprises to honour committee invitations.
During the debate, senators warned that repeated non-compliance had become institutionalised, weakening the legislature’s ability to scrutinise public spending.
The Senate consequently directed all MDAs to honour committee invitations while warning that continued defiance would attract sanctions under Sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution.
House Committees Facing Similar Challenges
The House of Representatives has not been spared.
The House Committee on Polytechnic and Higher Technical Education repeatedly invited the Minister of Education, Tunji Alausa, over the implementation of the Federal Government’s Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) programme.
Rather than receiving the minister, the committee repeatedly dealt with absences and eventually gave him a final opportunity to appear, directing the Ministry of Education to submit all relevant documents before a specified deadline.
For lawmakers, such delays frustrate oversight, prolong investigations and weaken accountability over programmes involving billions of naira in public funds.
Another notable example came during the House Ad-hoc Committee’s investigation into the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC).
Throughout the investigation, several officials either failed to appear or delayed compliance with invitations.
The committee repeatedly lamented the absence of critical government officials while resorting to stronger measures, including directing security agencies to ensure the appearance of individuals considered central to the investigation.
Lessons from the Past
Ironically, there was a time when invitations from the National Assembly commanded far greater respect.
Accounting officers understood that failure to honour committee invitations could trigger constitutional sanctions or attract intense public scrutiny.
Several landmark investigations exposed financial irregularities, leading to policy reforms and recoveries of public funds.
Although not every investigation produced prosecutions, oversight hearings served as an important deterrent.
Public officials generally recognised that Parliament possessed both constitutional authority and political resolve.
Today, that perception appears to be changing. Repeated non-compliance by agencies suggests some officials no longer consider legislative invitations urgent.
That represents a worrying institutional shift.
Oversight Beyond Budget Approval
Oversight is one of the National Assembly’s three core constitutional responsibilities alongside lawmaking and representation.
After approving budgets running into tens of trillions of naira annually, lawmakers are expected to ensure those funds are utilised according to law.
Without effective oversight, budget approval becomes little more than a ceremonial exercise.
Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution provide broad investigative powers to the National Assembly.
Section 88 empowers lawmakers to investigate any matter relating to the administration of laws and expenditure of public funds in order to expose corruption, inefficiency and waste.
Section 89 goes further by empowering the legislature to summon any person in Nigeria, compel the production of documents and issue warrants where necessary to enforce attendance.
On paper, those powers are extensive. Ign practice, however, they are seldom fully deployed.
Why Agencies Ignore Invitations
Several factors appear to be encouraging the growing disregard for legislative invitations.
First is the perception that there are few consequences for ignoring lawmakers.
In many instances, agencies simply request another date or ignore invitations entirely without suffering meaningful sanctions.
Unlike court summons, parliamentary invitations often depend on political will for enforcement.
Secondly, executive agencies frequently calculate that the National Assembly will eventually reschedule hearings rather than invoke constitutional powers.
That calculation has, in many cases, proved correct.
Thirdly, politics often interferes with oversight.
Committee investigations sometimes lose momentum after initial public attention fades.
Some probes stretch over months before quietly disappearing from public discourse.
Officials are therefore encouraged to believe that delaying tactics may eventually make investigations lose steam.
Most crucial is the fact that it is said that most MDA’s executive were avoiding some conversations that happens behind closed-doors.
The implications extend far beyond legislative prestige.
When agencies refuse to appear before oversight committees, lawmakers cannot verify budget implementation, examine procurement decisions or question discrepancies in financial records.
This creates accountability gaps.
Public institutions become less transparent.
Citizens lose opportunities to understand how public resources are managed.
Even anti-corruption efforts suffer because parliamentary investigations frequently uncover financial irregularities that may later be referred to anti-graft agencies.
Oversight hearings have historically exposed abandoned projects, contract inflation, revenue leakages and procurement violations.
Weakening that process ultimately weakens governance itself.
Nigeria’s democracy rests on three independent arms of government-the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.
Each exists partly to check the excesses of the others.
If executive agencies begin routinely disregarding invitations from the legislature, that constitutional balance becomes distorted.
Several senators recently argued that persistent refusal to honour invitations undermines the doctrine of checks and balances while eroding the authority of Parliament itself.
The concern is understandable.
An oversight invitation is not merely an administrative letter.
It represents an exercise of constitutional authority delegated by Nigerians through their elected representatives.
Ignoring such invitations raises broader questions about respect for democratic institutions.
Does the National Assembly Share the Blame?
Some governance experts argue that lawmakers must also accept responsibility for the current situation.
Despite possessing constitutional powers to compel attendance, committees rarely invoke them.
Instead, invitations are repeatedly rescheduled.
Hearings are adjourned multiple times.
Deadlines are extended.
Officials who fail to appear often receive fresh invitations without sanctions.
Such leniency may have unintentionally encouraged further non-compliance.
The Senate itself acknowledged this concern during debate on the growing defiance by MDAs, insisting that constitutional enforcement powers should no longer remain dormant.
Learning from Other Democracies
In mature democracies, parliamentary committees command enormous respect.
In the United Kingdom, ministers and senior civil servants routinely appear before select committees to answer questions on public policy and expenditure.
In the United States, congressional committees possess extensive subpoena powers, and refusal to comply can result in contempt proceedings with serious legal consequences.
While Nigeria operates within its own constitutional context, these examples demonstrate that effective oversight depends not merely on constitutional provisions but on the willingness to enforce them consistently.
Strong institutions derive authority from predictable enforcement.
From Warning to Enforcement
Recent resolutions suggest lawmakers are beginning to recognise the urgency of the problem.
The Senate has directed the Clerk of the National Assembly to communicate its resolutions to all MDAs.
It also called on the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, supervising ministers and the Head of the Civil Service to ensure agencies under their supervision comply with parliamentary invitations.
More significantly, senators warned that continued refusal to honour invitations would trigger enforcement measures under Sections 88 and 89 of the Constitution.
Whether those warnings translate into concrete action remains to be seen.