Speaker Dimeji Bankole's new methods and tactics are unfolding by the day. Last Thursday, he surprised both his colleagues and watchers of the House as he laboured desperately to extricate himself from the recent strange behaviour of the lower legislative chamber towards the Freedom of Information (FoI Bill).

The Speaker had shortly after the resumption of the plenary session, which was covered live by the Nigeria Television Authority (NTA), begged and almost intimidated his colleagues to take a second look at the bill. Bankole strangely said he was going to put his honour on the line to get his colleagues to consider the bill, which was listed as the first item on the Order Paper for that day. A motion had been listed against Ita Enang, Chairman of the Rules and Business Committee and 16 others asking the House to rescind its decision of November 14, 2007 and order its re-committal to the Joint Committee on Information and Justice.

Sensing discomfort in the House, Bankole said: "The first order of the day is a controversial one. Hon. Colleagues, please hear out. Given the difficult approach of the Fourth Estate of the Realm, especially in the last two weeks and the visit of my colleagues (supporters of the bill) to my office and in good faith, it is important that we take a second look at this particular bill. I am appealing that we do justice to this particular bill at the consideration stage. Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water."

Just as Bankole was still speaking, the hands of some legislators itching to raise a point of order were up and the Speaker did not take kindly to that. Those of Patrick Ikhariale and Chinyere Ike were more conspicuous. "You are raising a point of order on the Speaker of the House of Representatives," Bankole hollered from his exalted seat.

That notwithstanding, Ikhariale was allowed to speak. Then Bala Na'Allah and Mohammed Ali Ndume - all spoke against the Rules and Business Committee for listing the bill for consideration without notice, saying it was in violation of the House Standing Orders. Enang explained the reason for the motion. But there was rowdiness as shouts of no! no! no! greeted the explanation.

Then Bankole resumed: "We are going on holiday today (members clapped). Let us go in peace. Seriously speaking, we as a House in the last eight months exposed corruption without the FoI Bill; we as a House moved forward in investigation; we as a House built capacity for members in the last eight months. For us to move faster to achieve these goals, we need access to more information. From what I see, I don't see a problem with the motion itself, but with the manner it was brought. If that is the case, I will do something I have never done before. I will take the risk with you. On my honour, I am going to put the question. I am going to take that risk right here today."

From where I sat in the gallery, I was shocked to hear Bankole put his honour on the line because of the FoI Bill. What could have happened between last Thursday and the penultimate Monday when the Speaker, at a forum of The Initiatives (a group in the House), gave the impression that the bill may not scale through in the House?

Like the Speaker admitted, the House must have come under the bashing from members of the public and the media over its posture on the bill. Besides, the visit to his office by some of his colleagues supporting the bill must have done the magic.

But the question is: Was Bankole sincere with his threat to stake his honour? My answer is no. Was he not playing politics with the issue? My answer is yes. The young man appears to me to have read Machiavelli's The Prince. The Italian philosopher posits: "When he has the chance, an able prince should cunningly foster some opposition to himself so that by overcoming it, he can enhance his own stature."

Bankole wanted to enhance his stature. He knows he occupies a powerful office. He knew he had do play some power game. So, he merely played up some opposition to know those who would be on his side. No wonder, as soon as he threatened to stake his honour, no fewer than 20 law-makers rushed to his seat begging him to withdraw the threat for obvious reason. Who would not do so on a day membership of some ad-hoc committee, notably that of the Constitution Review, was to be announced? Who would not do that on a day committees were waiting to be dissolved? Who would not do that on a day the House was going on recess, considering the fact that a lot would happen during the period?