The House of Representatives has clarified the circumstances surrounding a procedural issue that arose during Wednesday’s plenary, insisting that the controversy was not over the substance of a motion on funding challenges affecting Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), but over discrepancies between the version approved by the Speaker and the one presented on the floor.
In a statement issued by the House Spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi Jr., the House explained that the matter arose during consideration of a Matter of Urgent Public Importance sponsored by Rep. Alexander Mascot Ikwechegh, representing Aba North/Aba South Federal Constituency of Abia State, on funding constraints affecting MDAs and the implementation of the capital component of the 2025 Federal Budget.
According to the statement, the issue centred on a procedural inconsistency involving differences between the motion submitted to Speaker Rt. Hon. Abbas Tajudeen for approval and the version eventually presented during plenary.
The House noted that under Order Eight, Rule 5(1) of its Standing Orders (Eleventh Edition), Matters of Urgent Public Importance must first be submitted to the Speaker for consideration before being introduced on the floor. The provision, it explained, ensures that only matters meeting the required threshold of urgency are admitted and debated based on an authenticated text.
Despite objections from some lawmakers, Speaker Abbas admitted the motion for debate, allowing the sponsoring member to present it before the House.
However, during the presentation, the Speaker observed that key sections of the motion, particularly the proposed resolutions and prayers, differed materially from the version earlier submitted and approved. The House said additional prayers that were not contained in the authenticated document had been introduced during the presentation.
To preserve transparency and safeguard the integrity of parliamentary records, the Speaker directed that the officially submitted version be read before the House and invited members of the Minority Caucus to verify the discrepancies.
The statement stressed that the House, as an institution governed by established rules and documentary records, could only take decisions based on motions that had been duly submitted, authenticated and approved for consideration.
It further explained that any substantial amendment to an approved motion during presentation must comply with laid-down parliamentary procedures.
The House also dismissed suggestions that the sponsoring lawmaker was prevented from raising the matter, maintaining that the concern was strictly procedural.
“It is important to emphasise that the sponsoring Member was not prevented from raising the issue before the House. The concern was solely about ensuring compliance with established procedures and maintaining the integrity of legislative records,” the statement said.
While acknowledging that members continue to deepen their understanding of parliamentary practice, the House reminded lawmakers of their obligation to present motions strictly in the form in which they were submitted and approved.
Following consideration of the motion in its approved form, Speaker Abbas referred the matter to an Ad Hoc Committee for further legislative examination and report, in line with the prayers contained in the authenticated document.
The House reaffirmed its commitment to protecting lawmakers’ rights to raise issues of urgent public importance while ensuring that all legislative proceedings are conducted in strict compliance with the Standing Orders, due process and the highest standards of parliamentary integrity.
