For those who grew up watching the spine-chilling “Hammer House of Horror” series, the title evoked a world in which one frightening episode often gave way to another. In Edo State, however, the recurring drama has been political rather than fictional, with the State House of Assembly repeatedly moving from one leadership crisis to another.
The resignation of Blessing Agbebaku as Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly on August 17, 2026 has once again brought the legislature into the spotlight, reviving questions about why political instability has remained a recurring feature of the Assembly since Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999.
Agbebaku’s resignation may appear, on the surface, to be another change in the leadership of the House. But viewed against the background of the Assembly’s 27-year history, it represents something much bigger: another episode in a cycle of leadership tussles, impeachment battles, factional disputes, political maneuvering and struggles for control.
For more than two decades, the Edo Assembly has repeatedly found itself at the centre of broader political battles involving governors, political godfathers, party factions and rival political interests.
In several instances, disagreements that should ordinarily have been resolved through legislative debate and constitutional procedures have spilled into physical confrontations, competing claims to authority, parallel sittings and prolonged institutional uncertainty.
In that sense, the expression “Hammer House of Crisis” may sound dramatic, but Edo’s legislative history provides enough material to explain the metaphor.
The pattern became evident barely a year after Nigeria’s return to democratic rule. On January 31, 2000, lawmakers impeached Thomas Okosun, the first Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly in the Fourth Republic. His removal followed a power struggle within the political establishment and allegations of high-handedness, against the backdrop of competing interests within the ruling political camp.
The development was significant because it demonstrated early in the Fourth Republic that the struggle for political influence could easily find its way into the legislative chamber. The Assembly was not simply dealing with disagreements over legislation or governance. Its leadership had become part of a larger contest for political influence.
By 2010, the situation had reportedly become more volatile. A bitter leadership dispute resulted in violent clashes within the Assembly complex, with rival factions allegedly deploying thugs while teargas and weapons were reportedly used during the confrontation.
The incident was a disturbing indication of how far political disagreements had travelled from the realm of debate and negotiation.
A legislature is supposed to be a place where opposing interests can meet, argue, compromise and vote. When such disagreements degenerate into physical confrontation, the institution itself becomes a casualty.
The Sixth Assembly, particularly between 2014 and 2019, provided another turbulent chapter. In June 2014, Deputy Speaker Festus Ebea, who is presently serving in the current administration as Commissioner for Public Security and Safety, was impeached in circumstances that deepened divisions within the House.
The ensuing crisis produced competing claims to legislative authority, including the controversial appearance of a duplicated mace. The situation eventually contributed to the temporary closure of the Assembly chambers for repairs. But the turbulence did not stop there.
Between 2015 and 2019, four different Speakers reportedly occupied the position within four years. Such frequent changes could hardly have promoted legislative continuity or institutional stability.
The leadership changes were accompanied by suspensions, factional disagreements and allegations of financial recklessness, further reinforcing the perception of a legislature struggling to establish a stable political footing.
The deeper concern was that the Speaker’s office appeared to have become more than an administrative position within the legislature. It had become a coveted prize in the wider contest for political influence.
The events surrounding the Seventh Assembly would later provide perhaps the clearest demonstration of how political rivalry could destabilize the legislature.
On June 17, 2019, then Governor Godwin Obaseki proclaimed the Seventh Assembly. However, only a small number of the 24 elected lawmakers, reported at the time as nine or 10, were inaugurated during a controversial late-night sitting.
The move effectively sidelined 14 lawmakers believed to be loyal to former national chairman of the All-Progressives Congress, Adams Oshiomhole. What followed was a prolonged political and constitutional confrontation that exposed the depth of the divisions within the state’s political establishment.
In July 2019, the National Assembly intervened and ordered the closure of the Edo Assembly complex, triggering a wider dispute involving the state and federal authorities. The controversy subsequently became the subject of legal proceedings.
By December 4, 2019, the minority-led House declared the seats of the 14 absent lawmakers vacant, further escalating the confrontation.
The drama reached another critical point on August 6, 2020, when 17 lawmakers aligned with the Oshiomhole-led APC faction held a parallel sitting.
They purportedly impeached Speaker Frank Okiye and elected Victor Edoror as his replacement. The rival faction and the state executive subsequently traded accusations over the legitimacy of the sitting, with the government accusing the lawmakers of, among other things, attempting to seize the legislature through an allegedly forged mace.
The spectacle was more than a political disagreement over who should occupy the Speaker’s seat. It raised fundamental questions about the ability of democratic institutions to withstand political pressure.
The irony was difficult to miss. An institution constitutionally established to provide a platform for resolving political disagreements had itself become one of the principal arenas in which those disagreements were fought.
The Assembly’s turbulent relationship with the executive arm has also extended beyond the question of who controls its leadership.
In December 2024, the House passed a resolution suspending all 18 local government council chairmen and vice-chairmen in the state for two months.
The decision generated controversy, particularly against the backdrop of the national debate over local government autonomy and the constitutional limits of state-level control over local councils.
Again, the episode highlighted the recurring tensions surrounding the relationship between different levels and arms of government.
What makes the situation particularly troubling is that the political actors may change, political parties may change and Speakers may come and go, yet the pattern of crisis appears remarkably resilient.
That is why Agbebaku’s resignation should not be treated merely as another political development in the state.
It should serve as an opportunity for Edo’s political class to examine the deeper institutional problems that have allowed legislative instability to persist for so long.
Since 1999, the state has witnessed too many episodes involving impeachment attempts, leadership changes, factional confrontations, physical clashes, parallel sittings and disputes over the legitimacy of legislative authority. It would therefore be simplistic to blame every crisis on the personality of a particular Speaker. The recurring nature of the problem suggests a deeper structural issue.
The Edo Assembly has too often been caught in the crossfire of political struggles extending beyond the walls of the legislature. A healthy legislature should be capable of disagreeing with the executive without being destabilized by executive pressure.
Likewise, lawmakers should be able to change their leadership, where constitutionally permissible, without turning the Assembly into a battlefield for rival political interests.
The fundamental question is not whether lawmakers can disagree. They should. The question is whether they can disagree within the boundaries of democratic institutions.
After 27 years of uninterrupted democratic rule, Nigeria’s democratic journey has produced important gains, but it has also exposed the fragility of some institutions.
Democracy cannot be sustained merely by conducting elections every four years. It requires strong institutions, respect for constitutional procedures, political tolerance and the willingness of political actors to accept outcomes that do not always favour them.
For Edo, the State House of Assembly is an important part of that democratic architecture.
Its members are not merely representatives of competing political camps. They are lawmakers entrusted with the responsibility of making laws, scrutinizing public expenditure, representing their constituents and holding the executive accountable.
Those responsibilities become difficult to discharge when the House is constantly consumed by battles over leadership.
The resignation of Agbebaku therefore presents an opportunity to break the cycle. The immediate temptation will be to concentrate on who succeeds him as Speaker. But that is only the surface issue.
The more important task is to ensure that whoever emerges as the next Speaker is not simply the candidate of a faction but the leader of a legislature committed to institutional stability.
Edo has had enough leadership crises. It has had enough factional battles. It has had enough political confrontations in which the legitimacy of legislative authority becomes the subject of dispute.
And it has certainly had enough episodes in which the mace, rather than legislation and public policy, becomes a symbol of the struggle for political supremacy.
The state now needs an Assembly where disagreements are settled through debate, negotiation, voting and constitutional procedures rather than intimidation, physical confrontation or parallel sittings.
That is the real test of democratic maturity. As Nigeria marks 27 years of uninterrupted democratic rule, the Edo Assembly’s history offers a lesson that should concern not only Edo but the entire country: democratic continuity does not automatically produce institutional maturity.
An institution can survive for decades and still remain vulnerable to the same weaknesses. The latest resignation should therefore not be seen simply as another change in the occupant of the Speaker’s chair.
It should be a moment for reflection on why, after 27 years of democracy, the Edo legislature continues to experience recurring crises of leadership. The old “Hammer House of Horror” series was frightening precisely because one episode often ended only to prepare the audience for another.
For Edo’s House of Assembly, the challenge now is to ensure that its political story does not continue in the same fashion. Agbebaku’s resignation may have closed another chapter. But unless the underlying political and institutional weaknesses are addressed, another chapter of the state’s “Hammer House of Crisis” may only be waiting to begin.
After 27 years of democracy, Edo deserves a legislature remembered not for the frequency with which Speakers are removed or replaced, but for the quality of laws it makes, the accountability it demands and the stability it brings to democratic governance.
