Paragraph 1: The Genesis of the Crisis
The Lagos State House of Assembly is embroiled in a deep leadership crisis, with two individuals, Mudashiru Obasa and Mojisola Meranda, both claiming the Speakership. The conflict originated on January 13, 2025, when 33 lawmakers voted to remove Obasa from his position while he was in the United States, citing allegations of abuse of office, financial misappropriations, and misconduct. Meranda, a former Deputy Speaker, was subsequently appointed as the new Speaker. Upon his return, Obasa contested his removal, initiating a power struggle that has yet to be resolved.
Paragraph 2: Failed Mediation Attempts and Escalation
Despite the intervention of prominent All Progressives Congress (APC) figures, including former governors Bisi Akande and Olusegun Osoba, and the state’s Governance Advisory Council (GAC), a resolution to the leadership impasse remains elusive. Even a mediating panel constituted by President Bola Tinubu, which engaged with GAC members, stakeholders, and lawmakers, failed to bridge the divide. The crisis dramatically escalated when Obasa, accompanied by security personnel, unexpectedly returned to the Assembly complex and reoccupied the Speaker’s office. This move shocked many and further deepened the confusion surrounding the House’s leadership.
Paragraph 3: Security Concerns and Police Intervention
The situation became further complicated by the withdrawal of police protection assigned to Meranda on the same day that Obasa’s security detail was reinforced. This raised concerns about Meranda’s vulnerability and sparked speculation about the police’s role in Obasa’s return to the Assembly. The Lagos State Police Command subsequently clarified that the security changes were part of a personnel audit and not targeted at any individual. They confirmed that Meranda’s security detail had been reinstated and that Obasa’s request for protection was based on alleged threats to his life and family. The police emphasized their non-involvement in Obasa’s entry into the Speaker’s office.
Paragraph 4: Parallel Plenaries and Claims to Legitimacy
The leadership crisis deepened with the convening of two separate plenary sessions, one led by Obasa with only four lawmakers and the other by Meranda, who maintains the support of 35 lawmakers. Obasa defended his actions, asserting that he had never been legally removed and that his four-member plenary was valid. Meranda, on the other hand, dismissed Obasa’s plenary as a “show of shame,” emphasizing the lack of quorum and highlighting the substantial number of lawmakers supporting her claim to the Speakership. Both Obasa and Meranda adjourned their respective sessions indefinitely, further complicating the situation and leaving it unclear when or how the House will reconvene.
Paragraph 5: The Role of the Party and GAC
The GAC, the highest decision-making body of the APC in Lagos, criticized the lawmakers for not consulting with the party before removing Obasa. The GAC chairman, Tajudeen Olusi, stressed that the lawmakers did not have the absolute authority to remove or install leaders without party involvement. He emphasized that the party plays a crucial role in sponsoring and overseeing elected officials. The GAC affirmed its continued efforts to mediate the crisis and find a solution that respects the party’s structure and processes.
Paragraph 6: The Clerkship Dispute
Adding to the complexity of the crisis is a separate dispute over the position of Clerk of the House. Olalekan Onafeko, who was suspended by the House on the same day Obasa was removed, has obtained a court order reinstating him as Clerk. Ottun Babatunde, who was appointed Clerk after Onafeko’s suspension, has publicly disputed this order and continues to claim the position. This dual claim to the clerkship mirrors the Speakership conflict, creating further administrative and legal challenges for the Lagos State House of Assembly. The situation is complicated by conflicting public notices issued by both individuals, each claiming authority and directing others to disregard communications from their rival. This clerkship dispute further paralyzes the Assembly’s administrative function and exacerbates the overall crisis.
