The Philosophical and Constitutional Critique Of the Legislative “Take a Bow and Go” Phenomenon in Legislative Screening of Political Appointees

Abstract

Politics is inherently dynamic and self-evolving worldwide, yet Nigeria’s political landscape remains stagnant, often at odds with both ideal and practical governance. The 2023 elections, long anticipated, have come and gone, but their contentious nature will leave lasting scars on the nation’s democratic process. As February 25, 2023, approached, tensions escalated amid fears of a tumultuous transition at both federal and state levels. Despite constitutional guarantees ensuring the transfer of power, public scrutiny intensified over the selection and confirmation of key government officials. A crucial aspect of governance in Nigeria is the legislative confirmation of nominees for ministerial and commissioner positions. However, this process has been undermined by the widespread adoption of the "Bow and Go" practice, where nominees are granted automatic approval without substantive scrutiny. This has sparked public outrage, with critics arguing that it compromises democratic accountability, weakens the principles of representation, and undermines the doctrine of separation of powers. This paper examines the legitimacy of the "Bow and Go" practice within Nigeria’s constitutional and jurisprudential framework. It questions whether such a process upholds or erodes democratic principles and whether it reflects the will of the electorate. Relying on John Locke’s Social Contract and Consent Theory, the study explores how governance should be rooted in accountability, representation, and separation of powers. It further assesses whether a strict application of these principles can restore legislative integrity and protect the interests of the people. Ultimately, this analysis seeks to determine whether the Nigerian legislative confirmation process enhances or hinders governance and how reforms can prevent the perpetuation of ineffective leadership.