The administrative wing of the Senate has been thrown into fresh turmoil as committee clerks publicly defend Emmanuel Odo, the Acting Clerk of the Senate, amid mounting allegations that staff were coerced into paying monthly levies into a private bank account. The dispute, which has widened internal divisions and triggered calls for accountability, marks the most serious challenge yet to Odo’s brief but controversial tenure.
The controversy stems from reports that clerks and assistant clerks of the Senate’s more than 70 standing committees were instructed to remit a total of ₦200,000 per committee each month—₦100,000 from each clerk and another ₦100,000 from each deputy clerk.
According to multiple accounts, the directive was issued at a meeting held in November 2025, with funds said to be paid into a private UBA account (2065154519) belonging to retired National Assembly staffer Uzoma Patience Edet. While the stated purpose of the collections was to finance “farewell packages” and end-of-year events for departing staff, several clerks reported that the instruction lacked documentation, transparency, and any assurance of refund.
At least 20 clerks have reportedly already complied. Others, particularly those from committees with limited funds, said they faced mounting pressure to pay. One female clerk, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisals, described the situation as coercive and said she had been unable to meet the demand.
When contacted by reporters, Emmanuel Odo declined to respond directly to the allegations. Instead, he insisted that any individuals making such claims must be named publicly before he would offer comment.
“You are free to publish the story on the allegation,” he said, “but names of the accusers must also be revealed.”
The statement was widely interpreted as a rejection of the narrative without addressing the underlying issues.
To date, Senate management has issued no official statement clarifying whether the controversial instruction was sanctioned or whether the administration plans to investigate the matter.
In an unexpected twist, the body of committee clerks has issued a collective defence of Odo. In a statement circulating internally within the National Assembly, they dismissed the allegations as “unfounded and unsubstantiated,” describing them as a malicious attempt to tarnish the Clerk’s reputation.
The clerks praised Odo’s leadership, pointing to what they described as renewed enthusiasm, improved staff morale, and a culture of transparency and accountability in financial administration since he assumed office. They also warned against “parochial and mischievous individuals” whom they believe are working to undermine the Senate bureaucracy.
Although the defence has not yet been published by mainstream media outlets, it marks the strongest institutional show of support for Odo since the scandal erupted — and highlights a clear divide between those alleging wrongdoing and those backing the Clerk.
A Controversial Appointment Under Fresh Pressure
The extortion allegations come just months after Odo’s rise to the Senate’s top administrative role. On 16 September 2025, the National Assembly Service Commission (NASC) appointed him Acting Clerk of the Senate, a move framed at the time as recognition of his administrative competence and years of service.
But his appointment soon drew scrutiny. In October 2025, the Malcolm Omirhobo Foundation, a civil society group, petitioned the NASC, alleging that the process violated civil service rules. The petition questioned the adherence to merit, seniority, and the federal character principle and flagged discrepancies in Odo’s service record.
That earlier challenge, though unresolved, now forms the backdrop to the current crisis — with critics arguing that weaknesses in the appointment process may have created room for administrative abuse, while supporters insist the allegations are part of a broader attempt to discredit a reform-minded official.
The swirling claims — and the Senate’s silence — have deepened anxieties within the National Assembly. Staff sources warn that the situation has damaged morale, widened internal fissures, and risked eroding public trust in the institution’s administrative integrity.
Whether the allegations ultimately prove true or not, the perception of misconduct is already having consequences. Analysts note that the payment of levies into a private account, particularly under alleged pressure, constitutes a serious breach of administrative norms if confirmed.
With clerks divided and no official investigation yet announced, pressure is mounting on Senate leadership to act. Staff members say only a transparent, independent inquiry can restore confidence and determine whether the November payment directive represents an organised scheme or a misinterpreted effort to fund staff welfare.
For now, the crisis continues to simmer — and Emmanuel Odo, already under scrutiny from his appointment battles, faces the most significant test of his tenure at a moment when stability within the Senate bureaucracy is urgently needed.
