A civic advocacy organisation, AdvoKC Foundation, has criticised the 10th National Assembly over what it described as its “perpetual recess culture” and refusal to disclose lawmakers’ attendance records, accusing the federal legislature of undermining transparency and accountability.

In a statement made available to The PUNCH, AdvoKC Communications Manager, Luqman Adamu, raised concerns that the National Assembly had spent more time on recess than in active plenary despite mounting national challenges, including insecurity, inflation and the rising cost of living.

Adamu noted that the Senate and the House of Representatives commenced their annual statutory recess on July 23, 2026, only weeks after returning from previous legislative breaks, including those observed during the Easter and Eid-el-Kabir holidays.

According to him, the pattern has raised concerns over the legislature’s commitment to its constitutional responsibilities of lawmaking, oversight and appropriation.

He said, “It is a question of whether the institution constitutionally charged with lawmaking, oversight, and appropriation is actually doing its job.”

AdvoKC argued that although recess was necessary for constituency engagement and committee work, it should not become “the default state of the legislature, with plenary as the exception.”

The foundation further questioned the value Nigerians were receiving from what it described as the highest-funded National Assembly in the country’s history.

“The 10th Assembly carries the highest budget in Nigeria’s legislative history, yet the correlation between funding and floor time has moved in the wrong direction.

“Nigerians are entitled to ask a simple question: what, exactly, are lawmakers being paid record sums to do, if not to legislate and sit in session?” Adamu stated.

The group also linked the frequent recesses to the country’s prevailing socio-economic challenges, noting that insecurity continued to affect several parts of the country while inflation had weakened household purchasing power.

The organisation also accused the National Assembly of resisting public scrutiny after allegedly refusing to release lawmakers’ attendance records despite a Freedom of Information request.

It explained that it submitted an FOI request to the Clerk to the National Assembly on June 19, 2026, seeking attendance, absence, apology and voting participation records for both chambers covering June 2023 to June 2026.

Adamu argued that although the request was acknowledged on the same day, the National Assembly failed to respond within the seven days prescribed under the Freedom of Information Act, 2011.

According to him, a notice of non-compliance was subsequently issued on July 9, warning that the failure amounted to a deemed refusal under the Act and giving the legislature until July 17 to comply before legal action would be initiated.

The communication manager said the National Assembly eventually replied on July 24 through its Legal Services Directorate, stating that the requested records constituted “evidence of proceedings” protected under Section 16 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017, and Section 16 of the FOI Act, and could only be released with the authorisation of the Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives or the relevant committee chairman.

Rejecting the explanation, AdvoKC maintained that attendance records were administrative documents rather than privileged legislative proceedings.

“The privilege contemplated under Section 16 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act exists to protect the integrity of legislative debate and deliberation, the substance of what is said and decided on the floor, not the administrative fact of whether a lawmaker was present to say or decide anything at all.

“Attendance is not a record of parliamentary opinion, negotiation, or deliberative content. It is a roll call.

“Treating it as a privileged proceeding stretches a doctrine designed to protect free debate into a shield for basic accountability,” the statement added.

Adamu also faulted the requirement that the Senate President or Speaker must authorise the release of the records.

He said, “There is also a structural irony that should not be lost on the public: the National Assembly is asking the public to trust that the Senate President and the Speaker, the very officers whose institutions and, in many cases, whose own attendance records are implicated, should be the ones to decide whether those records ever see the light of day.”

AdvoKC argued that the combination of frequent recesses and refusal to release attendance records portrayed “an institution that is increasingly comfortable being seen without being scrutinised.”

The foundation demanded the immediate release of the requested attendance records, routine quarterly publication of plenary attendance by both chambers, and a public account of the proportion of time the National Assembly had spent on recess compared to plenary sessions since the inauguration of the 10th Assembly.

Adamu also vowed that they would pursue judicial review under Section 20 of the Freedom of Information Act and continue tracking the matter through its PromiseTracker.ng platform until the records were released.

“Nigerians are not asking the National Assembly to explain its politics. They are asking it to confirm whether it showed up,” he added.