Godswill Akpabio Under Fire: Senate President Dismisses Assassination Allegation by Senator Natasha as Baseless Political Stunt

Senate President Godswill Akpabio wasted no time in setting the record straight after Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan claimed there was a plot to assassinate her. Speaking with a tone of finality, Akpabio described the allegations as “completely baseless, without evidence, and capable of inciting public fear.” He emphasized the Senate’s role as a chamber of deliberation—not a theatre for sensational claims—and warned against using legislative privilege to spread what he termed “politically motivated fiction.”

Godswill Akpabio’s response was delivered with calculated precision, underscoring his position as both a disciplinarian and a defender of institutional order. By publicly downplaying the seriousness of the assassination claims, the Senate President appeared determined to prevent the Red Chamber from descending into what he saw as a circus of unverified accusations. His approach immediately polarized the chamber, igniting murmurs of discontent and drawing sharp criticism from advocacy groups and civil society observers.

Godswill Akpabio Demands Evidence: “Where Are the Facts?”

Godswill Akpabio doubled down on his position, challenging Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to present concrete evidence or risk undermining the credibility of the entire Senate. “If you claim there was an assassination attempt, provide dates, names, or documentation. We cannot govern a nation through hearsay,” he declared, as murmurs of agreement echoed through some parts of the chamber. His tone suggested irritation at what he perceived as a disruption of legislative focus.

By insisting on evidence, Akpabio portrayed himself as a guardian of due process and a bulwark against emotional manipulation. He accused political actors of weaponizing fear to gain public sympathy and insisted that any senator facing legitimate threats must follow formal procedures through security channels—not dramatic announcements in plenary. His call for restraint drew both applause and alarm, depending on which side of the aisle one stood.

Godswill Akpabio’s Political Calculus: Shielding the Senate or Silencing Dissent?

Godswill Akpabio’s swift dismissal of the allegations has been interpreted by many as a calculated political move. Analysts argue that by refusing to entertain Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims, he may be protecting more than just parliamentary decorum—he could be shielding powerful interests unsettled by her growing influence in Kogi State. The Senate President’s stance, critics say, risks silencing dissenting voices in the name of order.

Godswill Akpabio, however, appears undeterred. His political instincts, honed over years of navigating Nigeria’s murky corridors of power, suggest a preference for tight control and party cohesion over disruptive transparency. In a system where perception often outweighs facts, Akpabio’s aggressive rebuttal seems aimed at projecting strength, quelling rebellion, and reinforcing the Senate’s hierarchy—even if it risks muting legitimate concerns.

Godswill Akpabio and the Security Conundrum: Deafening Silence from Agencies

Godswill Akpabio has not pressed Nigeria’s security agencies for action or comment following the controversial allegations—a move critics say implies tacit dismissal of the entire episode. Despite the gravity of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims, there has been no formal briefing from the DSS, Police, or NSCDC. Akpabio’s lack of urgency in this regard further cements his stance that the matter holds little merit.

Yet, this silence speaks volumes. Human rights groups and democracy advocates argue that Akpabio, by refusing to demand accountability from security forces, is complicit in a growing culture of political impunity. If assassination claims can be brushed aside so easily in the upper chambers of government, what hope exists for ordinary Nigerians seeking justice or protection?

Akpabio and the Gender Dimension: Dismissal or Disrespect?

Akpabio’s forceful dismissal of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has drawn backlash from feminist groups, who accuse him of reinforcing the marginalization of women in power. They argue that his tone lacked sensitivity and that his language trivialized a potential threat to a female lawmaker’s life. “It’s not just about politics; it’s about the systemic erasure of women’s fears in male-dominated spaces,” one activist noted.

Akpabio, however, has not acknowledged the gendered implications of his stance. For him, the focus remains strictly procedural and political. But by refusing to entertain even the possibility of foul play, his leadership is now under scrutiny from gender rights advocates who see his actions as emblematic of a deeper institutional misogyny plaguing Nigerian politics.

Akpabio Holds His Ground as the Nation Watches Closely

Akpabio has remained firm, resisting calls for a Senate inquiry or an emergency security briefing. Instead, he has urged lawmakers to “focus on legislative priorities rather than distractions.” This posture has only intensified the controversy, with civil society leaders accusing the Senate President of prioritizing political optics over the safety of his colleagues.

While public opinion remains divided, Akpabio’s dominant voice has effectively shaped the initial narrative, framing Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims as disruptive noise. But as pressure mounts from advocacy groups, opposition senators, and a watchful citizenry, the question looms: Will Akpabio’s ironclad stance withstand the demand for transparency, or will the tide of public outrage force a Senate reckoning?