Dakwom Makpring Longgul JOS, NIGERIA —
The brewing storm in the Plateau State House of Assembly intensified today as the Minority Leader and former Speaker, Rt. Hon. Dewan K. Gabriel, issued a fierce rebuttal to the House Committee on Information, calling their recent justifications “misleading and intellectually dishonest.”
In a strongly worded press statement, Dewan threw down the gauntlet, challenging the House Committee to produce concrete, written evidence proving he ever consented to co-sponsoring the controversial pension bill.
The row began after Dewan publicly disowned the bill, prompting the House Committee on Information to claim he was aware of it, citing administrative policies from his time as Speaker and a WhatsApp message allegedly sent to him on February 4, 2025.
Rejecting the Committee’s defense, Dewan pointed out a glaring timeline discrepancy:
“Even if such a message exists from February 4th, 2025, when I was Speaker, why wasn’t the bill presented then? Why wait a year and six months later to present it on a day I was completely absent from plenary?”Dewan questioned.”Receiving a document—or expressing a casual opinion about it—does not amount to giving legal or parliamentary consent to be listed as a co-sponsor.
The Minority Leader issued a four-point challenge to the House Committee, demanding they make the following public:
1.Written or recorded consent authorizing the use of his name as a co-sponsor.
2.Express correspondence where he accepted sponsorship of the bill.
3.Minutes of any meeting showing his participation in drafting, reviewing, or approving the bill.
4. Attendance evidence proving he was at the plenary session when the bill was introduced.
He argued that attaching a lawmaker’s name to a piece of legislation without explicit authorization undermines the credibility of the entire legislative process.
“I reject every attempt to rewrite history or create the false impression that I willingly sponsored a bill in which I had no role,” Dewan stated flatly.The former Speaker concluded with an ultimatum, demanding the immediate removal of his name from the bill and a public correction from the House. Failure to do so, he warned, would leave him no choice but to explore all constitutional and legal avenues to protect his reputation and integrity.
count | 24
