A former Commissioner of the Federal Civil Service Commission, Henry Omoregie Williams Idahagbon, has petitioned the Senate President over what he described as false and malicious corruption allegations made against him by Senator Adams Oshiomhole during a recent Senate confirmation hearing.
In the petition addressed to the leadership of the Senate, Idahagbon accused the Edo North senator of abusing parliamentary privilege to level sweeping claims of corruption against him without evidence. He said Oshiomhole’s opposition to his reappointment was anchored on allegations of irregular recruitment and promotion practices at the Federal Civil Service Commission, which he dismissed as reckless and unfounded.
Idahagbon stated that the only reason he had not taken legal action for libel was because the comments were made on the floor of the Senate and therefore protected by privilege. He challenged Oshiomhole to repeat the allegations outside the chamber, where facts rather than insinuations would be required.
The former commissioner, whose tenure at the FCSC ended on August 26, 2025 before his renomination by the President, alleged that the senator’s actions were motivated by personal grievances. According to him, the hostility began after he refused to interfere with civil service examination and promotion processes to favour a candidate linked to Oshiomhole.
He claimed that on August 15, 2023, Oshiomhole forwarded an examination number and requested that the candidate be ensured a pass and promoted. Idahagbon said the candidate failed the examination and that he declined to manipulate the process in line with civil service rules. He added that he retains the examination scripts, which he said show poor performance, and offered to submit them to the Senate for independent verification.
Idahagbon further alleged that following his refusal, the senator subjected him to prolonged verbal abuse in the presence of a legal practitioner who could attest to the incident. He also linked the senator’s conduct to political disagreements ahead of the 2024 Edo State governorship election, saying he publicly opposed Oshiomhole’s support for a candidate from Edo South on the grounds of zoning, equity, and allegations of financial compromise.
Describing the corruption accusation as ironic, Idahagbon noted that Oshiomhole had in the past appointed or recommended him for key positions, including Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice of Edo State, Secretary General of the Oshiomhole Campaign Organisation, and nomination to the Federal Civil Service Commission. He questioned how he could suddenly be labelled corrupt after being entrusted with such sensitive roles.
The former commissioner also rejected what he described as a misrepresentation of senatorial authority, stressing that Oshiomhole does not represent his district, as he is from Edo South while the senator represents Edo North.
Read also:
- We’ve received only N2.1bn as oil derivation fund, Edo govt says
- EDITORIAL: Corrupt officials in public office: Matters arising
- APC crisis fester as Niger Gov, Bello takes over as Sole Administrator
On recruitment, Idahagbon explained that a federal embargo on employment had been in place since 2020, with only a special waiver in 2023 allowing the recruitment of 1,350 persons nationwide. He said Edo State received just 18 slots and disclosed that the first person employed from his allocation was Taofiq Oshiomhole. He said copies of the employment letters were attached to the petition and invited the Senate to verify them independently.
He insisted that promotions at the Federal Civil Service Commission follow a collective and transparent process, making it impossible for a single commissioner to manipulate outcomes. According to him, the allegations have caused serious reputational harm, noting that his family, including his children, had been inundated with calls following the Senate session.
Idahagbon urged the Senate to invite him to defend himself, compel Senator Oshiomhole to substantiate his claims, and put an end to what he described as the use of parliamentary privilege for personal vendetta, while upholding his constitutional right to fair hearing.
