Natasha v. Akpabio: Issues and Possible Outcomes, by Yahaya Kana Ismaila
In this unfolding face-off between Distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Nigerian Senate, particularly its President, Distinguished Senator Godswill Akpabio, two distinct but interconnected issues have emerged. One appears to have directly led to the other, creating a spectacle that has drawn national attention and divided opinions.
The first issue is Senator Natasha’s clear disregard for the Senate’s established rules — a playbook designed to maintain order and guide the chamber’s proceedings. In what can only be described as an egregious display of naiveté, she attempted to overturn these rules by rejecting the stipulated change of seating arrangements following the defection of a senator, a settled practice within the Nigerian senate. This change, outlined in the Senate’s rule book, is not a matter of personal preference but a procedural directive meant to ensure smooth legislative operations.
Rather than address her concerns through the proper channels, Natasha escalated the matter by engaging in an unnecessary and chaotic shouting match with the entire Senate. Her anger was directed particularly at the Senate President, Senator Akpabio — perhaps for not protecting her enough or other reasons best known to her. This could feed the speculations that have surfaced to the effect that her hostility might be linked to Akpabio’s perceived relationship with her husband, in which case she expected more protection from him, adding a layer of personal sentiment to what should remain a professional discourse.
The second issue, which seems more like an afterthought, is the serious allegation of sexual harassment she levelled against the Senate President. What is perplexing about this claim is the manner in which it was presented. Instead of following formal legislative procedures, she took the matter first to the court of public opinion via the media. It was only later that she attempted, albeit improperly, to formalise the accusation within the Senate.
While not completely dismissing this claim, I reckon it calls to question the authenticity and timing of her allegations. Those familiar with Natasha’s political history would recognise a pattern in her approach. There have been previous instances where she made sensational claims that were later called into question. This is not to say her allegations should be dismissed without due investigation, but it does caution us against taking every claim at face value without thorough scrutiny.
That said, Akpabio is not without his own controversies. He, too, has faced allegations of a similar nature in the past. This shared history of contentious accusations makes it even more imperative for us to tread carefully in our analysis of this situation. Neither party is above suspicion, and both deserve fair and impartial consideration.
However, it is crucial to understand that Natasha’s suspension from the Senate has little to do with her allegations of sexual harassment. Her suspension stems primarily from her blatant and repeated violations of the Senate’s rules. These include her refusal to adhere to seating arrangements, her disruptive conduct during plenary sessions, and her misuse of legislative procedures to push her harassment claims. Even more troubling is her failure to appear before the Senate Committee on Ethics and Public Petitions when invited to clarify her allegations and behaviour.
The original sexual harassment case she brought against Akpabio is already before the courts. As such, any public commentary on the matter risks being considered sub judice — a legal principle that forbids discussions on ongoing judicial proceedings to prevent influencing the outcome or showing contempt of court. Therefore, while the court’s decision on the harassment case remains pending, it is important to note that this judicial process cannot interfere with the disciplinary measures already undertaken by the Senate.
Even with the court’s injunction barring the Senate from suspending her, the Senate’s disciplinary actions remain a separate matter entirely. The Nigerian Senate, like the judiciary, is an independent arm of government with its own statutory functions and internal processes. Therefore, any attempt by the judiciary to prevent the legislature from enforcing its own rules and maintaining order within its chambers raises serious constitutional questions about the balance of power and institutional autonomy.
It is equally important to remember that legislative discipline is not an attack on individual members but a safeguard for the dignity and functionality of the institution. Natasha’s behaviour, regardless of the merit of her claims, undermined the decorum expected in the Senate. Her refusal to follow due process and her decision to bypass established legislative channels for personal or as we have seen in the past few days, media cum political gain cannot be overlooked.
As this saga continues to unfold, several possible outcomes are on the horizon. Should the court rule in Natasha’s favour on the sexual harassment case, it would undoubtedly have significant political and reputational consequences for Akpabio. It could also reshape the power dynamics within the Senate and force a reassessment of its leadership. Conversely, if the court dismisses her claims, it would further validate the disciplinary actions already taken against her and potentially damage her political standing.
Regardless of the court’s ruling, the Senate’s decision to suspend Natasha will likely stand unless overturned through internal legislative review or political negotiation. The judiciary’s role, while essential in determining the legitimacy of her harassment claims, does not extend to micromanaging the Senate’s internal governance.
In the end, this case demands the need for maturity, professionalism, and respect for institutional rules among elected officials. Both Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Godswill Akpabio owe it to their constituents — and the nation at large — to rise above personal animosities and conduct themselves in a manner befitting their offices. The Senate, as a critical arm of government, must remain a space of decorum and disciplined discourse, not a battleground for individual grievances and political showmanship.
As the country becomes sharply divided over whose camp to project or defend, only time will tell how this high-stakes drama will be resolved, but one thing remains clear: the integrity of Nigeria’s legislative processes must take precedence over personal battles. The nation deserves no less.
