By Philip Agbese
Nigeria’s democracy has gotten to a point where the resilience of our noble institutions is constantly tested by the intensity of agreement and disagreement in parliamentary Chambers. It is precisely in such moments we see ideas collide, voices of opposition rise, and passions sometimes threaten to overwhelm procedure that shows leadership should be seen beyond just title.
The recent deliberations surrounding the amended Electoral Act 2026 has further revealed Rt. Hon. Benjamin Kalu, who is the Deputy Speaker, to be an outstanding leader in the Nigerian House of Representatives. His conduct has undoubtedly express emotional intelligence, institutional fidelity, and democratic maturity. Kalu’s capacity to read the room without being ruled by it, and to act decisively without becoming dismissive, has in truth become a far more demanding attribute that is worthy of emulation. It was this quality that defined Benjamin Kalu’s leadership during one of the most contentious legislative exercises in the House.
However, the atmosphere recently felt inside the chamber during the clause-by-clause consideration of the Electoral Act amendment was electric in the sense that tempers frayed, tensions flared, and opposition lawmakers staged protests over the removal of the “real-time” transmission clause. It is well understood that the phrase itself; “real-time transmission,” had over time, assumed a symbolic weight which goes beyond its technical meaning. Within the House and in the imagination of the public, it has become a shorthand for electoral credibility, transparency, and the collective yearning by Nigerians for a system they could trust. At this point, it was, in essence, what Nigerians wanted.
Yet, while many lawmakers were understandably engrossed on the symbolic power of real-time transmission, an essential question which was barely asked by anyone amidst the echoes of protest is: what will happen when the imperfect realities of technology, and human systems occur during electoral exercise?
The debatable controversy surrounding real-time transmission reveals a deep philosophical divide that exist in governance. On one side, we have those who viewed the provision as non-negotiable electoral reform, while on the other side were lawmakers who support the electronic transmission in principle and also advocate for a safeguard-manual collation in the event of technological failure. The later was not a rejection of progress but an acknowledgment of contingency.
It is a general knowledge that in a country like Nigeria, server fluctuations, network instability, technological imperfections are not just hypothetical but lived experience. Therefore, the insistence on a single, inflexible method of conduct is a big democratic risk. It was this inconvenience that Hon. Kalu perceived the necessity of the right intervention, even as the opposition chants reverberated through the chamber.
Presiding over proceedings like this is a task that requires more than just the mastery of House rules, one that demands the sensitivity of managing human behaviour under stress. This was the confrontation before the deputy speaker: how would he uphold the rules of the House, protect minority voices, and ensure that dissent was heard, while also preventing the legislature from being held hostage by procedural brinkmanship.
As protests erupted over the removal of the real-time transmission clause, Hon. Kalu didn’t allow frustration to harden into rigidity, he chose a more demanding route. He gave room to the opposition lawmakers to vent their grievances. At the same time, he showed an affirmation of institutional integrity as he remained anchored to the rules governing legislative debate, insisting that the House must proceed, clause by clause, regardless of the volume of objections. His refusal to personalise the conflict along political line was an applaudable move that distinguished the deputy speaker’s conduct as a hallmark of emotional intelligence.
Hon. Kalu’s intervention showed a precise confrontation about idealism and realism. While opposition voices kept hitting on the removal of an absolute real-time clause as betrayal of public trust, the Deputy Speaker stood firm on the realty that rigidity can itself undermine credibility, because he believes that an electoral process that collapses because of issues with server or disruption in network does not serve democracy; but imperils it. His decision to steer the House retaining electronic transmission while permitting manual collation in the event of technological failure, has created a trustworthy legal framework.
It is important to understand that this outcome wasn’t from a place of partisan manoeuvring or one that pits the government against opposition. It is one that cut across party lines, standing as broad agreement on the desirability of electronic transmission. At this point, the law was only left to acknowledge the possibility of technological imperfections. In this sense, the Deputy Speaker’s role was not to advance a party agenda but to reconcile competing anxieties within the same democratic family.
Surprisingly, throughout the proceedings, the Deputy Speaker remained conspicuously focused even amidst the turbulence created by opposition’s protests. His demeanour at that moment conveyed a quiet message that the House would not be distracted from its duty. Hon. Kalu listened, he ruled, and he moved the process forward. He also ensured that that the amended Electoral Act 2026 was eventual passed.
At the end of the session, the law emerged not as the imposition of a dominant faction but as the product of legislative process that has undergone exhaustive and contentious sessions. Through the result of achieving a balanced outcome, the Deputy Speaker demonstrated that emotional intelligence is not opposed to rationality; it enhances it. This dual recognition has proven that the institution itself speaks louder than any individual voice, and this is the essence of responsible lawmaking by intelligent lawmakers.
It is also worthy of note that the true beneficiary of the Deputy Speaker’s display of high intellect is not a party or faction, but the Nigerian democratic project itself. His effort to prevent the House from descending into procedural chaos, has protected the credibility of the legislature, most especially at a time when public trust has become so fragile and precious at the same time.
Moreover, only few leaders who, like Hon. Kalu, can acknowledge the need of agreements in building institutions towards solutions that would create enduring services. He understood that the authority of the chair derives not from force but from fairness. Kalu has always interpret and enforce rules within the house without appearing partisan; and he has been guiding debates without dictating outcomes.
Kalu’s conduct during the passage of the amended Electoral Act embodies the essence of leadership, one that defines it to be much of temperament as it is about intellect. This exemplary action calls for more presence of intellectual leaders like Kalu in Nigeria’s democratic journey, because history would be a good judge of the amended Electoral Act 2026 on its practical outcomes in future elections. However, regardless of how those outcomes would unfold, the process by which the law was passed will always stand as a guide for future leaders.
This is a feat that should indeed be celebrated by all Nigerians rather than being condemned. Without doubt, the Deputy Speaker has demonstrated that emotional intelligence is not an abstract concept but a lived practice that strengthens democracy itself when exercised with integrity.
Agbese, Deputy Spokesperson of the House of Representatives, writes from Apa-Agila.
