In any elected government there are three arms, one to make laws, the second to execute them and the third to adjudicate on the laws. By separating their functions and powers, each is supposed to serve as a check on the others.

The fundamental difference between an elected government and a dictatorship of whatever kind is the separate and autonomous existence of the law making arm. In any elected government no one can spend one kobo from government's coffers without the legislature's appropriation and no treaty with any country can become law without the legislature's approval. For me these alone makes it the first among the equal but separate three arms, even though it seems the executive arm is the most powerful probably because, by definition, it is the largest. (It is, I suppose, this power that makes its head any country's No. 1 Citizen and his deputy the No. 2.)

As, at least for me, the more equal of the three arms of our government, it is not surprising that the subject matter of those to head our two-chamber legislature, the National Assembly, has dominated our media headlines since the end of this year's general elections in April. Of the two chambers, i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives, the election of the head of the former as the senior chamber, namely its President and the country's NO. 3 Citizen, has attracted, by far, the greater public and media attention than that of the head of the latter, namely its Speaker and the country's No. 4 Citizen.

Since Independence in 1960, the Senate has had twelve Presidents, three (Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief Dennis Osadebe, and Dr Nwafor Orizu) during the First Republic between 1960 and 1966, one (Dr. Joseph Wayas) during the Second Republic between 1979 and 1983, two (Dr Iyorchia Ayu and Mr Ameh Ebute) during the peculiar Third Republic - which was a diarchy in all but name under military president, General Ibrahim Babangida - during the last two years of his eight-year transition programme that ended in 1993, and six (Chief Evan Enwerem, Dr. Chuba Okadigbo, Chief Anyim Pius Anyim, Chief Adolphus Wabara, Chief Ken Nnamani and the incumbent, General David Mark) during the current Fourth Republic which began in 1999.

The race for Mark's successor has since turned into a rollercoaster with all its twists and turns that have left almost everyone in a tizzy. At the beginning it all seemed a shoo-in for Senator Abubakar Bukola Saraki, the ranking senator representing Kwara Central, two-term governor of the state, one time chairman of the powerful Nigeria's Governors' Forum, and apparently the worthy successor of his late father and Senate Leader during the Second Republic, Dr Abubakar Olusola Saraki, as the godfather of Kwara politics.

First, his geo-political zone, the North-Central, was bettered only by the North-West in delivering for the All Progressives Congress (APC) during the general elections and he played a key role in so doing. Second, he'd earned a somewhat controversial reputation for his capacity as a successful wheeler-dealer in politics and business. Third, because of the first reason, his party's National Working Committee (NWC) was reported to have initially zoned the Senate presidency to his zone and he looked like the sole beneficiary.

This picture of a shoo-in for the godfather of Kwara politics has since given way to one of serious challenge to him from within his zone and from the North-East such that today the Senate presidency is a toss-up between him, Senator George Akume, the current minority leader and two-term governor of Benue State, and Senator Ahmed Ibrahim Lawan, who has been a federal legislator since 1999, twice as member of the House of Representatives and twice now as senator.

Yesterday's lead story of Thisday provides probably the best and possibly the most authoritative insight into the predicament the APC faces as these three battle for the Senate's presidency for which the incumbent deserves credit for virtually single-handedly stabilizing - whatever reservations anyone may have about his politics.

In its first eight years, the Senate had a scandalous number of five presidents, giving an average of one and a half years per president, thanks mainly to meddling in its affairs by President Olusegun Obasanjo. Then Mark came along in 2007 following a controversial win of his seat in Benue State, got elected president after his party zoned it to North-Central, his geo-political zone, and remained president for eight years by managing to keep out external meddling and by beating all challenges to his leadership from within.

Needless to say, the now stable Senate presidency has become a much more attractive political prize than it was before Mark and, not surprisingly, the fight for it has become highly intense. Thisday's headline, "Intrigues, Horse Trading Trail Senate Presidency Race," and its rider to the headline, "Lawan gets Buhari's nod as Tinubu conditions support on Gbajabiamila as Speaker; Saraki, Akume intensify lobby; APC caucus may decide Wednesday," were probably as accurate a gist of the fight as any news that have been published about it so far.

Unfortunately this picture, to the extent that it is accurate - which I believe it is - shows that little has changed from the smoke and mirrors days of the ruling PDP where the main consideration was not how power could best be used for public service but who got what. Consequently, zoning trumped every other consideration for elective offices, and the final say always went to the president.

Nigerians voted APC for change and not to carry on with the discredited ways of the PDP. This party introduced and popularized zoning in Nigeria's politics. But 16 years on, the concept has only promoted mediocrity in politics as many of its critics, including this reporter, had predicted. Worse, it had also led to unnecessary acrimony and instability in the polity. APC should therefore discard it and allow a free-for-all in the elections for the National Assembly leadership, based on who its members think would lead them best and serve the public interest best.

The most important consideration should never be where the contestants come from. Far more important are first, their demonstrated personal integrity and commitment to public service as opposed to self service and, second, their abhorrence of the old divide and rule ways of the PDP government leadership.

There are, of course, other considerations like competence and a capacity to keep outsiders from meddling in the strictly internal affairs of the National Assembly. However, the overriding consideration must be the personal integrity of an aspirant and his commitment to public service such as would facilitate, rather than hinder, President-elect Muhammadu Buhari from bringing about at least the beginning of the change he has promised.

It could be that none of the three current contenders fits this bill, given the fact that they are too steeped in the bad old attitude of the legislature to have the will to change things around. In that case, nothing, in theory at least, stops the federal legislators, most of whom are new, from looking beyond the lot on offer for the Senate leadership. However, since, in practice, time is now an object and as such has restricted the choice before the legislators to the three, they should be left alone by the APC to choose the least bad of a not-so-ideal lot.

In my thinking that choice should be Senator George Akume. His choice could signal the beginning of an end to a badly divided North, especially religious wise, a division which, in turn, has been very bad for Nigeria's peace, stability and progress. His choice is also likely to pose the least obstructive of the three to the Senate working hand-in-glove with the presidency to bring an end to the impunity that so much characterized the departing PDP government and made the lives of most Nigerians so nasty, brutish and short.