A bold move for justice: The House of Representatives stands with unpaid contractors.
In a powerful display of solidarity, the House has taken an unprecedented step, adjourning its plenary for a week to support contractors who have been protesting the Federal Government's failure to settle their debts.
The decision was sparked by a motion from Rep. Kabiru Maipalace, who urged the House to take a stand until the executive arm keeps its promise. Contractors, desperate for payment for projects executed years ago, have taken matters into their own hands, blocking the National Assembly's entrance.
But here's where it gets controversial: the disruption led to a unanimous rejection of urgent motions, a rare occurrence. The Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, had to call for a closed-door session to address the growing tension.
During this session, the House Minority Leader highlighted the government's continued failure to implement the 2024-2025 budget and the resulting hardship. He emphasized that even the President's directive to pay contractors has been ignored.
The motion further exposed the dire consequences of non-payment, including increased poverty and public unrest.
In a bold move, the House gave a seven-day ultimatum to key ministers and the Accountant General, demanding immediate payment and budget implementation. Rep. Maipalace then proposed an adjournment, arguing that lawmakers should only reconvene once payment updates are received.
The Deputy Speaker sought clarification, and the Chairman of the Rules and Business Committee, Rep. Francis Waive, supported the adjournment, stating that the contractors' protest would continue, making it sensible for lawmakers to stay away.
And this is the part most people miss: the House's decision to adjourn was not just a show of support but a strategic move to avoid further disruption and give the executive a chance to act.
The House unanimously adopted the motion, directing its leadership to engage the executive for immediate action.
This story raises important questions: Is this a necessary step to hold the government accountable? Or is it a political move with potential consequences? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
