By Paul Omo Okojie

The unfolding events in the Edo State House of Assembly have raised questions that go far beyond the recent change in legislative leadership. What is now playing out in the Assembly touches the very foundation of democratic governance in the state: the independence of the legislature, control and accountability of public funds, the constitutional relationship between the executive and legislative arms of government, and the confidence of citizens in the institutions established to represent them.

For many Edo citizens, the controversy may appear at first to be another political disagreement within the Assembly. But a closer examination of available public records and recent developments suggests that the issues deserve much deeper scrutiny. The question is not simply who becomes Speaker, who controls the majority or which political camp is dominant. The bigger question is whether the House of Assembly is sufficiently independent to perform its constitutional responsibility of scrutinising government expenditure and holding the executive accountable.

That question has become particularly important following revelations concerning Edo State’s budget implementation.

An analysis by Premium Times of the Edo State Government’s fourth-quarter 2025 Budget Performance Report found approximately ₦14.15 billion in extra-budgetary expenditure across the executive, legislature and judiciary. According to the report, several arms and departments of government spent beyond their approved budgetary provisions, raising questions about compliance with appropriation laws and the effectiveness of legislative oversight.

The figures concerning the House of Assembly are particularly striking. The report stated that the Assembly had an approved overhead budget of approximately ₦4.67 billion, but expenditure reached about ₦7.23 billion, representing approximately ₦2.56 billion above the approved figure, or 54.9 per cent budget over-performance.

That figure should concern every citizen of Edo State.

It does not, by itself, establish fraud or criminal conduct. Nor should it be used as proof of wrongdoing against any individual without further evidence. But it raises a legitimate and important question: what authorised the additional expenditure, and where are the records showing that the expenditure was lawfully approved?

The question becomes even more significant because the House of Assembly is itself the institution constitutionally expected to scrutinise government expenditure. If ministries and agencies are expected to remain within appropriated limits, the same principle must apply to the legislature. If there were lawful reasons for the additional expenditure, the Assembly should have no difficulty explaining them publicly.

This is where the issue of legislative independence becomes inseparable from financial accountability.

Edo’s official budget repository publishes budget and budget-performance documents, including quarterly reports for 2025 and 2026. The documents are public records and provide citizens, journalists and civil society organisations with an opportunity to examine how appropriated funds are being implemented.

The state’s 2026 approved budget provides another example of why closer scrutiny is necessary. Among the appropriations relating to the House of Assembly are ₦300 million for renovation of the Speaker’s Guest House and the Sports Complex, ₦50 million for installation of security equipment at the Assembly complex, and ₦50 million for erection of a monument at the State House of Assembly.

There is nothing inherently wrong with government budgeting for renovation, security or infrastructure. The issue for taxpayers is what happens after the money is appropriated. How much was eventually released? How much was spent? Which contractors received the contracts? Were procurement procedures followed? Were the projects completed? Were there variations? And did actual expenditure remain within the limits approved by the legislature?

These are not political questions. They are questions of public accountability.

Against this background, the recent controversy over the financial autonomy of the House of Assembly assumes greater significance.

In August 2026, workers at the Edo State House of Assembly protested amid reports of proposed legislation that appeared to seek the repeal of the 2023 laws governing the financial autonomy of the legislature and judiciary. The Guardian, TheCable and other newspapers reported that workers feared the proposed changes could undermine the financial independence of the institutions.

The controversy became serious enough to disrupt activities at the Assembly. There were also reports of opposition from lawyers and legislative workers, while judicial workers subsequently became involved in the dispute.

But the story did not end there. The new Speaker, Yekini Idaiye, later explained that the intention was not to abolish financial autonomy but to amend the existing arrangements, particularly with respect to the management of capital expenditure. He said recurrent expenditure would continue to go to the Assembly and judiciary and insisted that the autonomy of the two institutions had not been removed. Governor Monday Okpebholo subsequently signed the amended legislation into law.

That explanation is important and should be placed on record. It also demonstrates why the public needs access to the actual legislation rather than relying solely on political interpretations of what it does.

If the amendment preserves financial autonomy while changing the mechanism for managing capital expenditure, then the government and Assembly should make the details sufficiently clear to the public. Edo citizens should be able to see precisely what powers remain with the legislature and judiciary, what powers have changed and what role, if any, the executive now plays in the management of capital funds.

This is especially important because financial autonomy is not simply an administrative arrangement. It is connected to the principle of separation of powers. Which is the beauty of Democracy’s ideals.

A legislature cannot effectively supervise an executive if it is financially dependent upon that same executive. At the same time, financial autonomy cannot mean that the legislature is free from accountability. Independence without transparency can become another form of institutional weakness.

This is why the present controversy should not be reduced to allegations that the executive is controlling the Assembly, just as it should not be dismissed as merely an internal disagreement among lawmakers.

The evidence presently available establishes that there has been a significant dispute over the management of legislative and judicial financial autonomy. It also establishes that the Assembly has undergone a leadership change and that its finances have featured in public controversy. What it does not establish, without additional evidence, is that the executive unlawfully engineered those developments.

That distinction matters. Governor Okpebholo has urged lawmakers to resolve their disagreements and work in the interest of Edo State. Such an appeal can reasonably be understood as a call for stability. But the constitutional boundary between encouraging cooperation and exercising influence over another arm of government must remain clear.

The Assembly must be allowed to conduct its affairs independently, while lawmakers must also accept the responsibility that comes with that independence.

The recent change in leadership provides an opportunity for the new Assembly leadership to demonstrate this principle in practice. If there are allegations of financial impropriety against former or serving officials, those allegations should be investigated according to established procedures. If procurement questions have been raised, the relevant documents should be examined. If expenditure exceeded approved appropriations, the Assembly should explain why and identify the legal authority for the expenditure.

The same standard must apply to the executive.

The Premium Times investigation reported that the Office of the Governor also exceeded its revised overhead allocation, spending approximately ₦13.72 billion against an approved ₦10.08 billion, a difference of about ₦3.64 billion.

This is important because accountability cannot be selective.

If the legislature demands explanations from the executive, it must be prepared to explain its own spending. If the executive demands accountability from the legislature, the executive’s own financial records must remain open to scrutiny. The principle should be simple: every naira appropriated belongs to the people, and every institution spending it must be accountable.

The real danger for Edo is not necessarily that one political actor becomes more powerful than another. The greater danger is the gradual erosion of institutional checks and balances.

When a legislature becomes too dependent on the executive, oversight can become weaker. When lawmakers become more concerned about political survival than institutional independence, legislative scrutiny can suffer. But when legislators demand autonomy without transparent financial management, they can equally lose the confidence of the people they represent.

Edo therefore needs neither an all-powerful executive nor an unaccountable legislature.

It needs institutions strong enough to check one another.

The public outcry surrounding the Assembly should consequently not be treated as an inconvenience. It should be regarded as a democratic warning signal. Workers, lawyers, civil society organisations, journalists and ordinary citizens have raised concerns because the public understands that the independence of institutions ultimately affects the protection of public resources and the quality of governance.

The appropriate response is transparency.

The Edo State House of Assembly should publish sufficient information to enable citizens to understand its expenditure. The executive should continue to publish budget-performance information and explain significant deviations from approved appropriations. Procurement processes should be transparent. Legislative investigations should be conducted without vendetta and their conclusions should be communicated to the public.

Most importantly, the current administration should recognise that an independent legislature is not an enemy of the governor. A strong legislature can actually strengthen government by ensuring that policies, budgets and expenditures receive proper scrutiny before public money is committed.

Likewise, an independent legislature should not regard every question from the executive or the public as an attack. Accountability is part of democratic responsibility.

The figures now in the public domain make the matter too important to be left to political gossip. A reported ₦14.15 billion in extra-budgetary expenditure across Edo’s executive, legislature and judiciary, including approximately ₦2.56 billion attributed to expenditure above the Assembly’s revised overhead allocation, demands proper documentation and explanation.

The people of Edo should not be forced to choose between the executive and the legislature.

They should demand accountability from both.

The governor will eventually leave office. Members of the House will complete their legislative terms. Speakers will change. Political parties will rise and fall. But the institutions of Edo State will remain.

That is why the current controversy should be used to strengthen, rather than weaken, the state’s democratic institutions.

The fundamental issue is not who controls the House.

The fundamental issue is whether the House can independently perform its constitutional duties, whether the executive respects institutional boundaries, and whether every naira belonging to the people of Edo can be accounted for.

Public money is not the property of the governor. It is not the property of the lawmakers. It belongs to the people.

And in a functioning democracy, the people have every right to ask:

Who authorised the spending, where did the money go, what was it used for, and was the law obeyed?

Those questions should not be considered political attacks.

They are the questions of citizens in a democracy.