Akpabio, Natasha Trade Words as Senate Battles for Reputation

The Nigerian Senate has found itself at the center of controversy following a heated exchange between Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of Kogi Central. The dispute, which began on February 20, 2025, during a plenary session, has now escalated into a full-blown political crisis.

The issue started when Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan objected to the relocation of her seat in the Senate chamber, alleging that it was done without her consent. She accused Akpabio of sidelining her and preventing her from presenting bills for a second reading since their last confrontation. The disagreement intensified when Akpabio ordered security operatives to remove her from the chamber, an order that was not carried out after some lawmakers intervened.

Days later, the controversy deepened when Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan accused Akpabio of sexual harassment, a claim that further polarized the Senate. The Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions later dismissed the allegations on procedural grounds. However, on March 6, 2025, the Senate voted to suspend Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, citing gross misconduct, a move that has sparked widespread debate.

Akpabio: Natasha Fond of “Useless Allegations”

In his response, Akpabio accused Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of making baseless claims that tarnish the Senate’s reputation. Speaking at an event marking International Women’s Day, the Senate President stated that the accusations were a ploy to destabilize his leadership.

According to Akpabio, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations only surfaced after her committee assignments and seat location were changed. He dismissed the claims as a pattern of false accusations that had traumatized previous targets, adding that there was no prior report of harassment until her seat was reassigned.

“Have you ever wondered about the trauma caused by that same woman on the other people she has accused in the past? None has been proven so far. Do you even wonder about the trauma this caused to the 10th Senate and the image of the Senate with all these useless allegations?” Akpabio said.

The Senate President further pointed out that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was not the first person to have disagreements over seating arrangements or committee assignments, yet none had reacted in a manner that disrupted Senate proceedings. He maintained that the suspension was a necessary disciplinary action to uphold order in the chamber.

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Demands Independent Probe

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, however, refused to back down, insisting that an independent investigation was necessary to uncover the truth. Speaking through her lawyer, Victor Giwa, she reiterated that similar allegations had been made against Akpabio by former Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Managing Director, Joy Nunieh.

Giwa argued that the Senate President was using his position to victimize Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for rejecting his alleged advances. He also accused Akpabio of attempting to manipulate Senate proceedings to silence dissenting voices.

“If Akpabio makes such a statement, the question anybody will ask is why are there two allegations of sexual harassment against him? Joy Nunieh made the same allegation, and now it is Natasha. Akpabio should subject himself to investigation,” Giwa stated.

He further alleged that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan had been denied international travel opportunities extended to other senators and had been forced to finance her official trips while others had their expenses covered by the Senate. The senator’s legal team has vowed to challenge her suspension in court.

Senate Justifies Suspension Amid Public Outcry

The Senate, through its leader Opeyemi Bamidele, clarified that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension was based on disciplinary infractions rather than her allegations against Akpabio. Bamidele accused the media of misrepresenting the facts, stating that the senator was found guilty of violating multiple sections of the Senate Rules.

“The disciplinary action was a response to her repeated violations of legislative decorum, including refusing to sit in her assigned seat, speaking without recognition, making disrespectful remarks against Senate leadership, and obstructing Senate proceedings,” Bamidele said.

Despite the Senate’s justification, the suspension has drawn criticism from rights groups and political analysts. Former Senate President Bukola Saraki urged a transparent investigation to protect the Senate’s integrity, while activist lawyer Deji Adeyanju described Akpabio’s leadership as authoritarian. Public affairs analyst Hamma Hayatu also questioned the increasing suspension of lawmakers, calling for a judicial review of legislative disciplinary actions.

Legal and Legislative Challenges to the Suspension

The controversy has now extended beyond the Senate, with legal experts and lawmakers calling for a review of the suspension process. Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Funmi Falana, Director of Women Empowerment and Legal Aid, condemned Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension as unconstitutional.

Falana argued that the Senate had violated Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution. She threatened to drag lawyer-senators involved in the suspension before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee if the decision was not reversed.

“The Federal High Court had restrained the Senate Committee from hearing the complaint against her pending the determination of the motion on notice. The Senate must lift the suspension immediately, or we will take legal action,” Falana warned.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is considering a constitutional amendment to regulate the suspension of National Assembly members. A bill sponsored by Rep. Mansur Soro seeks to require a two-thirds majority vote before a lawmaker can be suspended, ensuring fair representation of constituents.

As the crisis unfolds, the Nigerian public continues to debate the balance between legislative discipline and the protection of lawmakers’ rights. The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for how the Senate handles internal conflicts and accusations of misconduct among its members.