SUSPENDED OR SILENCED? THE SAGA OF SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN’S SIX-MONTH BENCHING

SUSPENDED OR SILENCED? THE SAGA OF SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN’S SIX-MONTH BENCHING

In a dramatic twist worthy of a Nollywood blockbuster, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was handed a six-month suspension by the Nigerian Senate, over allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

But as the dust settles, the question remains: was this a justified disciplinary measure, or just another chapter in the silencing of women in Nigeria’s male-dominated political theatre?

The Plot Thickens

On Thursday, the Senate’s Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, led by Senator Imasuen Neda Bernards, laid down a damning report to the Committee of the Whole. The narrative painted a picture of chaos, with Natasha reportedly causing a “rowdy session” and engaging in a “shouting match” over seating arrangements. Now, while this may not exactly be the behaviour of a lawmaker, it’s also not the kind of offence that usually leads to a six-month political timeout—unless, of course, there’s more to this tale.

Investigative Process: A Fair Hearing or a Kangaroo Court?

According to the committee, Natasha was given the opportunity to state her side of the story, and testimonies were gathered to “ascertain the truth or otherwise” of her allegations. The Honourable Senate seemed to act in accordance with its mandate, but a deeper look into the process raises eyebrows. Was the investigative process truly impartial, or was it a prelude to a predetermined judgment?

Senator Jimoh Ibrahim Folorunsho’s comments during the session were particularly telling: “This institution is not about an individual. We have rules to regulate our activities.” True, but when the rules themselves become tools of selective justice, it’s the institution’s integrity that’s on the line.

See Also:

Funke Akindele: Self-Made Star Credits Success to God and D’banj’s Wise Counsel

PMS Price War: Dangote Refinery vs. NNPCL— Real Relief for Nigerians or Just a Market Mirage

Suspension: Justifiable or Judicial Overkill?

The Nigerian Constitution and the Senate’s own rules do allow for disciplinary measures against members, but the proportionality of Natasha’s suspension is questionable. A six-month suspension, complete with the withdrawal of security details, sealing of her office, and forfeiture of all National Assembly properties, feels more like exile than discipline.

The Minority Leader, Senator Abba Moro, even pleaded for mercy, suggesting a three-month suspension instead. His plea for leniency wasn’t just out of camaraderie but also an attempt to preserve the image of the Senate. But in an institution where the louder voices often drown out the reasonable ones, Moro’s call fell on deaf ears—or rather, on a conveniently timed “voice vote” led by the very man at the heart of the controversy, Senate President Akpabio.

Silencing the Female Voice?

One cannot help but notice the subtle undertones of gender dynamics at play. The Nigerian National Assembly has long been a boys’ club, where women often struggle to make their voices heard. The handling of Natasha’s case reeks of double standards. If a male senator had made similar allegations or caused a ruckus, would he have faced the same fate?

Senator Akpabio’s sentimental remarks, “The Senator we are talking about is the wife of my very close friend and brother,” only added a layer of discomfort to the whole process. Was this a reflection of conflict of interest, or just an unfortunate attempt at softening the narrative? Either way, it did nothing to quench suspicions of bias.

A Glimpse into the Rule Book

The Senate Standing Orders and the Nigerian Constitution both advocate for fairness, transparency, and due process. Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution provides for the right to a fair hearing, but if the process itself was tainted with bias or conducted without impartiality, then the outcome is questionable. Moreover, best practices in democratic institutions worldwide demand clear evidence and proportionate punishment, neither of which appears convincingly established in this case.

A Dangerous Precedent

By suspending Natasha for six months, the Senate may have set a dangerous precedent. It’s a message to any other lawmaker—especially female lawmakers—that stepping out of line could result in swift and disproportionate punishment. It’s also a message to the Nigerian public: when it comes to speaking out against those in power, the consequences could be dire.

The Need for Reform

This case shines a light on the urgent need for reform in the National Assembly’s disciplinary procedures. There needs to be a clear, transparent process that ensures allegations are thoroughly investigated without bias, and that punishments match the gravity of the offence.

Conclusion: The Verdict of Public Opinion

While the Senate has passed its judgment, the court of public opinion is still in session. Nigerians are watching closely, not just for the sake of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan but for the future of accountability and fairness in the National Assembly.

Was the suspension a justified action to maintain decorum, or was it a calculated move to silence a vocal female lawmaker? In a political arena where power often trumps principles, it might just be a bit of both.

And as for Senator Natasha, well, if history is anything to go by, this six-month suspension might just be the beginning of a louder, bolder comeback. Because if there’s one thing Nigerians love, it’s a redemption story—especially when it comes with a side of truth, justice, and a sprinkle of drama.