The suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan after her clash with Senate President Godswill Akpabio is one of the most debated controversies in Nigeria’s recent political history. Superficially, this looks like a simple punishment of a senator for bad behaviour.
However, closer scrutiny unveils intricate power dynamics, gender politics, institutional responsibility, legal history, and public image manipulation. Citizens expect senators, as senior figures, to show wisdom, integrity, emotional intelligence, and proper procedure.
Proficiency in managing public opinion and upholding the law is essential for them. However, the Senate’s handling of this controversy raises serious doubts about whether it prioritised ideals or allowed politics to compromise fairness, balance, and its institutional credibility.
A routine administrative act — reassigning Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Senate seat — sparked the controversy. Parliamentary rules grant the Senate President the power to adjust seating arrangements in response to party changes, administrative necessities, or political strategy.
Yet, the Senate President must exercise this power judiciously and fairly, without malice. According to Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senator Akpabio’s seating change was an act of political intimidation and retaliation for spurning his prior sexual advances.
Should it be true, the seating change represents an abuse of power, exceeding simple administrative action. Assuming without conceding that the seating reassignment was driven by malice, could Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan have protested with more grace and decorum?
Instead of a direct confrontation at plenary, some believe she should have followed the seating plan and protested privately or in camera. By doing so, she could have prevented her critics from portraying the matter as misconduct.
However, anger is a natural human reaction, especially when someone feels wronged. Her unsubstantiated claim does not excuse her tantrum during plenary; as a distinguished senator, she must meet the highest global standards of conduct. Her disruptive strategy reflected poorly on her, to say the least.
She is, however, in good company of disruptors in the Nigerian Senate; the current Senate President, Akpabio, staged a similar protest during Senator Bukola Saraki’s tenure, and Senator Oluremi Tinubu once engaged in a heated confrontation with Senator Ali Ndume.
But the Senate has chosen to discipline her for her outburst while simultaneously investigating her allegations against Akpabio. The penalty is a six-month suspension, dismissal from the National Assembly, and forfeiture of her allowances — a significant punishment.
Although the Senate dismissed her initial petition for breaching Senate rules, she resubmitted it, complying with the rules. Following this, Senate President Akpabio instructed the Ethics and Privileges Committee to review it and submit a report within four weeks.
This means that while disciplinary action against her was swift and decisive, the petition against Akpabio is still undergoing review, raising concerns about whether both matters are being handled with equal urgency and seriousness.
There is also the issue of institutional credibility and optics. When Akpoti-Uduaghan resubmitted her petition against Akpabio, it was Akpabio himself who presided over the Senate session to receive it and refer it to the Ethics Committee.
Even if he had no legal obligation to step aside, would it not have been more appropriate for the Deputy Senate President to handle the matter? This is not to suggest that Akpabio is guilty of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations, but it is standard practice in many parliaments that when a presiding officer is the subject of a petition, they recuse themselves from handling any process remotely or substantially related to the subject of the said petition. Optics matter, especially in cases of alleged abuse of power.
A related issue that requires scrutiny is the revelation by Senator Ireti Kingibe on Arise News that Akpoti-Uduaghan confided in her that Senate President Akpabio invited her to meet him at a hotel. This raises pertinent questions: Why would a grown woman share such information with another woman? Could it be because she found the invitation inappropriate and felt uncomfortable with it? Or was it a bragging right for her to show Kingibe how close she was with Akpabio? These are questions that only a thorough, independent, and impartial investigation can get answers to. To ensure fairness and credibility, the Senate must treat this claim with the same seriousness it showed when punishing Akpoti-Uduaghan’s outburst.
Beyond the immediate controversy, history suggests that properly investigating and addressing allegations of sexual harassment could help prevent similar disputes in the future. The case of Joy Nunieh, former acting Managing Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission, is a striking example. Nunieh had accused Akpabio of sexual harassment, claiming she had slapped him in response to his advances. However, authorities never properly investigated the allegation, nor did they issue any official finding. Addressing that case with transparency and fairness would have taught all parties valuable lessons.
A clear outcome — whether exoneration or accountability — might have deterred a repeat of such claims. A guilty verdict against Akpabio might have deterred future inappropriate advances. Conversely, proving the allegations false might have deterred future false accusations. Failing to investigate such cases leaves the system vulnerable to repeated claims and counterclaims, undermining public trust in institutional accountability.
There is also a larger legal concern — the Senate’s authority to suspend a senator for six months. Judicial precedent suggests that a legislative house does not have the power to suspend a member beyond 14 days. In Dino Melaye v. House of Representatives (2018) LPELR-43973 (CA), the Court of Appeal ruled that the suspension of an elected official beyond 14 days amounted to an unconstitutional usurpation of the electorate’s will, as it denied constituents their right to representation. Similarly, in Senator Ali Ndume v. Senate of Nigeria (2018) LPELR-46591 (CA), the Court of Appeal declared that the indefinite suspension of a senator was unlawful, affirming that while the Senate has the power to regulate its affairs, it cannot override constitutional rights or disenfranchise a constituency through extended suspensions.
The Senate should have been mindful of the admonition of Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, who once said that it may be good to have the strength of an elephant, but wiser to use it with the gentility of a dove. The decision of 107 lawmakers (with the exemption of late Senator Ifeanyi Ubah) to suspend Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months without pay appears to be an overkill, akin to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. Even if she ruffled feathers and, in the words of the committee, brought the upper legislative house to public opprobrium, should the response have been so extreme? The Senate, the highest law-making body in the country, should guide itself by restraint, fairness, and proportionate disciplinary measures, under Senate rules, rather than favouring suspensions exceeding 14 days.
Perhaps, in heeding the admonition of Justice Oputa, who once said it may be good to have the strength of an elephant, but wiser to use it with the gentility of a dove, Akpabio “rigged” recommendation 2 of the Ethics Committee during the voice vote to allow Natasha to send in a written apology and have her suspension reduced. Or is this a Greek gift? She needs to consider this opportunity carefully and determine whether the required apology only concerns her outburst regarding the seat reassignment. Some argue that if the apology addresses only her manner of protest, offering it might make sense, since challenging the Senate President’s statutory authority to reassign seats wasn’t misconduct, but her disruptive method certainly was. Others, however, believe she should wait for the courts, trusting that they will nullify the suspension, though the legal route is often long and tortuous.
Adding to the complexity is the legal principle of Lis Pendens—which dictates that once a matter is before a court, all parties are required to maintain the status quo and not take actions that could pre-empt judicial intervention. This doctrine has been affirmed in several decided cases, including Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh & Co. (1972) NSCC 692, where the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that once a case has been filed in court, parties must refrain from altering the subject of the dispute until the case is resolved, and Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, where the court held that no party, including the government, should engage in self-help or take actions that could undermine pending judicial proceedings. By proceeding with its probe and imposing severe sanctions against Akpoti-Uduaghan despite a pending case before the court, the Senate’s Ethics and Privileges Committee has acted in a manner that raises serious questions about its adherence to legal principles and due process.
The public perception battle and Senator Peter Nwaebonyi’s misogynistic attack
Notably, a parallel war is being fought in the public space — a deliberate attempt to smear Akpoti-Uduaghan’s reputation. Senator Peter Onyekachi Nwaebonyi’s misogynistic attack during a television interview is a clear example of this. Rather than focusing on the substance of her sexual harassment complaint, he chose to attack her personal life, questioning how many husbands she has had and the number of children she has given birth to.
This is condescending, sexist, narcissistic, and completely irrelevant to the case at hand. What does her marital history have to do with her complaint of inappropriate sexual advances? Is Nwaebonyi suggesting that because she has been married multiple times, she is not entitled to complain about sexual harassment? This is a deeply disturbing mindset, particularly coming from a lawmaker who should be expected to uphold principles of justice and fairness.
While it is hoped that Nwaebonyi is in the minority, the fact that such rhetoric was allowed to stand without widespread condemnation from his colleagues further stains the Senate’s reputation. This plays into a larger issue: the culture of undermining women’s voices in Nigerian politics. When women in power speak up against perceived injustices, their personal lives are weaponised against them in ways that male politicians never experience.
If Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition lacks merit, let it be dismissed on legal and procedural grounds—not through character assassination.
For now, the optics remain troubling. Whether Nigeria can rise above these tendencies and embrace a culture of fairness, transparency, and justice remains to be seen. The events of the coming weeks will tell the world whether Nigeria is truly governed by the rule of law or merely by the rule of men.
Ughegbe, Ph.D writes from Abuja
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONY: +2348069716645
