Senate backs Fasina despite controversy, rekindling accountability debate

The Senate’s confirmation of Professor Abayomi Fasina as a non-career ambassador has ignited fresh debate over how Nigeria’s political institutions should navigate allegations of misconduct against public office nominees, highlighting the tension between the constitutional presumption of innocence and growing public demands for greater accountability in public appointments.

After a lengthy and sometimes heated debate on Thursday, the upper legislative chamber approved the nomination of the former Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE), despite objections from some senators and renewed calls by civil society organisations urging lawmakers to suspend the confirmation pending the resolution of allegations of sexual misconduct previously levelled against him.

The decision has once again placed the Senate at the centre of a broader national conversation on whether public officials facing unresolved allegations should be entrusted with sensitive public responsibilities before such matters are conclusively settled.

The confirmation followed the presentation of a report by the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, which recommended Fasina’s appointment after reviewing petitions submitted both in support of and against his nomination.

Presenting the report on behalf of the committee chairman, Senator Sani Bello, Senator Simon Lalong of Plateau South said the committee found no legal grounds to reject the nomination.

According to Lalong, the allegations against Fasina had already been investigated by the FUOYE Governing Council, the Nigeria Police Force and the Department of State Services (DSS), all of which reportedly found no evidence warranting further action.

READ ALSO: Breaking: Senate passes Bill to establish agency for managing recovered criminal assets

“The committee received petitions against the nominee as well as petitions supporting his nomination. The allegations were investigated by competent authorities, including the University Governing Council and the Nigerian Police, which found them to be unsubstantiated,” Lalong told lawmakers.

He added that security clearance reports also favoured the nominee, describing Fasina as academically accomplished and professionally qualified for diplomatic service.

Despite the committee’s recommendation, the nomination exposed sharp divisions within the Senate.

Former Edo State Governor and Senator representing Edo North, Adams Oshiomhole, urged lawmakers to postpone the confirmation until all legal questions surrounding the allegations had been resolved.

While acknowledging the constitutional principle that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, Oshiomhole argued that the Senate also had a moral responsibility to consider the broader public perception of its decisions.

According to him, approving the nomination while allegations remained unresolved could undermine public confidence in the institution’s commitment to addressing issues affecting women.

“I am aware, and it is public knowledge, that this gentleman has been accused by two women. Nobody is saying he is guilty, but prudence demands that we allow the courts to determine the issues before giving him such a sensitive appointment,” he said.

His concerns were echoed by Senator Cyril Fasuyi, who represents Ekiti North, where FUOYE is located.

Fasuyi said his familiarity with the controversy informed his position that the Senate should exercise caution.

“This is a very sensitive issue that we cannot simply ignore,” he said, proposing that the Senate Committee on Rules and Business undertake further examination before confirmation.

Constitutional duty versus public expectations

Supporters of the nomination, however, maintained that the Senate was bound by constitutional principles rather than public sentiment.

Responding to the objections, Lalong insisted that no documentary evidence of any pending court proceedings had been presented to the committee during the screening exercise.

He argued that allegations alone could not serve as sufficient grounds for denying confirmation.

“It is not every allegation that will stop the proceedings of the Senate. Until a court of competent jurisdiction finds someone guilty, the Senate cannot assume guilt,” he said.

Senate President Godswill Akpabio similarly defended the committee’s recommendation, stressing that lawmakers must rely on verified findings rather than unsubstantiated claims.

He noted that the complainant neither appeared before the committee nor submitted fresh evidence during the screening process.

Akpabio also invoked Section 36(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees every Nigerian the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law.

“A man is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. We cannot abandon our constitutional responsibility simply because allegations have been made,” he said.

Senator Abdul Ningi of Bauchi Central also urged colleagues to confine themselves to the Senate’s constitutional role in evaluating nominees.

After the debate, Akpabio rejected an attempt by Senator Fasuyi to withdraw his endorsement of the committee report during plenary, explaining that Senate rules prescribed a formal procedure for such action.

Beyond Professor Fasina’s appointment, the debate has highlighted a broader institutional dilemma confronting democratic legislatures across the world: how to reconcile the constitutional rights of nominees with growing public expectations for ethical leadership and accountability.

Legal analysts note that the Constitution protects every citizen against conviction based solely on allegations, while governance advocates argue that holders of high public office are increasingly judged not only by legal standards but also by public confidence.