posted 8th March 2025
Seven Reasons Why the Suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan from the Nigerian Senate is Unjust, Unethical, Incompetent, and Lacks Merit
The Senate session/plenary that suspended Senator Natasha was a model of legislative incompetence and bias. Please follow me.
The Ethics Committee Chairman, who chaired the committee proceedings that recommended draconian punishments against Natasha, was clearly biased and perceived as such. He appeared on Arise News hours before the Ethics Committee sitting and asserted that he did not believe the Senate President was biased or a misogynist. In essence, he prejudiced the Ethics Committee proceedings before they even began reviewing the referral concerning Natasha’s seating saga. Given these circumstances, the outcome of the committee report was predictable.
Though the case of seating arrangements is not directly related to the twin cases of defamation and sexual harassment alleged by Natasha against the Senate President and his associates, it is indirectly linked. Natasha made it clear that these underlying issues led the Senate President to reallocate a seat to her, thereby disrupting her work as a senator. Consequently, the Senate President should not have chaired the plenary that suspended her. His decision to preside over the session was unethical, demonstrated bias, and made him appear as someone on a mission of revenge. His role in presiding over the plenary that suspended Natasha was, therefore, an act of legislative incompetence, injustice, and insensitivity, as the cases of sexual harassment and defamation—underlying issues behind the seat allocation saga—were directly linked to him. This glaring conflict of interest further erodes public confidence in the integrity of the Senate.
The 6th March plenary was riddled with clear procedural biases and injustices. Just as the Senate accused Natasha of ignorance of Senate rules because she signed her petition herself, the Senate also knowingly or disingenuously failed to obey its own rules and the fundamental principle of fairness and justice that one cannot be a judge in their own case—"nemo iudex in causa sua." This principle is a cornerstone of natural justice, emphasising impartiality in legal or legislative proceedings. Akpabio, as Senate President, should never have presided over the chamber during plenary sessions addressing Natasha’s case, including discussions on her allegations—both in the seat dispute (which she tied to his authority) and her later claims of sexual harassment, which she stated fuelled his antagonism toward her. By remaining in a position to influence proceedings against her, Akpabio effectively acted as a judge in a case where he had a personal stake, thereby violating the principle of impartiality. Essentially, the Senate exhibited both procedural and substantive incompetence in handling the case, suggesting significant bias and prejudice. While Natasha may have made procedural mistakes, the Senate and its Ethics Committee committed ethical and procedural blunders that have done irreparable damage to the credibility of the institution.
Though the entire Senate agreed that Natasha violated their rules by not obeying instructions to peacefully take up her newly allocated seat, almost all of them also acknowledged that she was a rookie who had just joined the Senate. Given this context, where is the justification for imposing such a draconian penalty on a newcomer still learning the rules? Here again, the Senate Ethics Committee and plenary demonstrated clear bias. Why didn’t they impose a six-week suspension, for example, instead of six months? The disproportionality of the punishment raises further questions about the real motives behind her suspension.
The second recommendation of the Ethics Committee, requiring Natasha to submit a written apology to regain her position in the Senate, was not a "soft landing." As Dr Abati observed, it was a trap of humiliation. This requirement was particularly degrading because she was being asked to apologise to her predators and persecutors. No person with a sense of dignity and justice should be forced into such a humiliating submission. This showed lack of intuition and respect on the part of the senators.
The Ethics Committee failed to comply with the ex-parte court order issued by Justice Obiora Egwuatu, following an ex-parte application by Senator Natasha’s legal team. The order automatically paused the committee’s proceedings regarding her re-assigned Senate seat on 20th February 2025, pending further judicial review. The argument that another arm of government cannot halt legislative proceedings is not only weak but also disingenuous and legally illiterate. In the United States, where Nigeria borrowed its constitution, courts have stopped executive orders issued by Trump for various reasons. Every court order in Nigeria is meant to be obeyed, not explained away with ignorance and legislative abuse. The Nigerian Senate and its agents are clearly misinterpreting the principle of separation of powers as enunciated by Montesquieu. For this reason, all recommendations of the Ethics Committee and the subsequent plenary that approved them are illegal and ultra vires. This blatant disregard for judicial authority sets a dangerous precedent for the rule of law in Nigeria.
In its desperate march towards injustice, bias, prejudice, and unfairness, the Senate failed to detect that one of the recommendations of the illegal Ethics Committee was not only immoral but also illegal. The committee recommended seizing the salaries and allowances of Natasha’s office staff. Until Senator Orji Uzor Kalu wisely intervened to halt this move, the Nigerian Senate was on course to deprive Natasha’s innocent staff of their wages. The most cruel and perplexing aspect of this is that a Labour Party senator signed the recommendation to withhold their pay. A Labour senator approved the unjust withholding of wages from innocent legislative workers? The irony is both baffling and disgraceful.
The suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not just an injustice against one individual—it is an indictment of the entire legislative process in Nigeria. It exposes a Senate willing to sacrifice fairness, due process, and ethical integrity on the altar of political vendettas and personal grievances. The blatant abuse of power, procedural irregularities, and disregard for judicial authority all point to a deeply flawed institution where might is right and dissent is punished. If the Senate can so brazenly trample on the rights of one of its own, what hope is there for ordinary citizens seeking justice? This case serves as yet another grim reminder that without urgent reforms, Nigeria’s democracy remains vulnerable to the whims of those in power. The people of Nigeria must not only condemn this injustice but also demand accountability from those who have turned a sacred democratic institution into a tool of oppression and personal vendetta.
