By Ataguba S. Aboje, Esq, FIP, AIGP, CIPM, CIPP/E, CC
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/8th-Annual-Conference-of-the-Nigeria-ILA.jpg")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
In a nation struggling to address issues of gender-based violence and harassment, the ongoing dispute between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio has thrust Nigeria’s highest legislative chamber into unprecedented turmoil. What began as a seating dispute has escalated into serious allegations of sexual harassment, culminating in a controversial six-month suspension that raises profound questions about institutional integrity, due process, and power dynamics in Nigeria’s political landscape.
The controversy began when Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, discovered her seat in the Senate chamber had been moved without prior consultation. Citing Order 10 of the Senate Standing Rules, which protects members’ privileges, she refused to relocate. This seemingly minor administrative matter quickly escalated when the Senate referred her to the Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions for disciplinary review.
Under Senate Standing Order 11, the Senate President does have authority to allocate seats. However, Order 11(2) stipulates: “A Senator may only speak from the seat allocated to him, provided that the President of the Senate may change the allocation from time to time.” While this grants the Senate President considerable discretion, abrupt changes without notice or explanation raised immediate procedural concerns, especially when directed at a female senator who would later allege retaliatory motives.
While awaiting the Ethics Committee’s disciplinary report, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan appeared on Arise Television on March 1, 2025, where she publicly alleged that Senate President Akpabio was “frustrating her because she refused to sleep with him.” She detailed specific incidents, including an alleged encounter at Akpabio’s residence in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, on December 8, 2023, where she claimed inappropriate advances were made in the presence of her husband.
She further alleged that on a separate occasion, Akpabio insinuated she should “take care of him” to secure favorable consideration of her motions on the Senate floor, suggesting a quid pro quo arrangement that would constitute a serious abuse of power.
These allegations were particularly striking because they weren’t the first of their kind against Akpabio. In 2020, Joy Nunieh, former acting managing director of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), had accused Akpabio, then Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, of sexual harassment – allegations he vehemently denied as “false, malicious, and libelous.”
The formal petition process unfolded in two distinct phases over consecutive days, each with different procedural approaches and outcomes.
On March 5, 2025, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan made her first attempt to formally submit a petition to the Senate accusing Akpabio of “sexual harassment, abuse of office, and obstruction of her legislative functions.” This petition, dated March 4, was presented under Order 40 of the Senate rules.
The Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions, chaired by Senator Neda Imasuen, dismissed the petition as “dead on arrival” on the same day. The dismissal was primarily based on procedural grounds – specifically that she had signed the petition herself, violating Order 41(4), which prohibits a senator from presenting a self-signed petition.
Adapting to the procedural rejection, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan returned the next day with a revised approach. On March 6, 2025, she resubmitted the petition during Thursday’s plenary, this time signed by her constituents led by Zubairu Yakubu (also identified in some reports as Soberu Azamari-Yakubu) to comply with Senate rules.
Upon submission, Senate President Akpabio asked, “Is there any legal impediment?” to which she responded, “None, sir.” Immediate procedural challenges emerged. Senate Chief Whip Tahir Munguno raised a point of order, citing Order 40(4) regarding matters sub judice, arguing the petition should be rejected because related matters were before the courts. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan countered that her court case concerned defamation regarding comments about her clothing, not sexual harassment, creating a material distinction between the matters.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan surprisingly suffered ad hominem attack from the Senate Majority Leader Opeyemi Bamidele and Senator Cyril Fasuyi of Ekiti North who questioned her credibility, with Fasuyi recalling her previous allegations against former Ekiti Governor Kayode Fayemi.
The petition was then formally accepted and referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions, with a directive to report back within four weeks after legislative review.
Despite the formal acceptance of this properly submitted petition and the establishment of a four-week investigation timeline, the Committee would make its suspension recommendation almost immediately – creating a stark procedural contradiction.
Conflict of Interest and Natural Justice
Throughout both petition submissions, a fundamental issue of procedural fairness remained: Senate President Akpabio presided over proceedings directly concerning allegations against him. While Nigeria’s Senate Standing Orders explicitly address only pecuniary conflicts of interest, the principle that “no one should be a judge in their own case” (nemo judex in causa sua) is foundational to natural justice and fair hearing.
Akpabio’s continued role in directing the handling of these allegations – accepting the petition, referring it to committee, and maintaining procedural control – created an inherent conflict that undermined the integrity of the process regardless of the merits of the underlying allegations.
Former Senate President Bukola Saraki recognised this conflict, publicly advising Akpabio to “submit himself for open investigation in order to ensure fairness and transparent resolution.” Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar similarly called for an “independent and transparent investigation.”
The Ethics Committee Decision and Suspension
Despite having just accepted the second petition with a four-week investigation timeline, on March 6, 2025 – the same day as the second submission – the Senate Ethics Committee chairman, Senator Neda Imasuen, recommended a severe six-month suspension for Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. This recommendation included freezing her salary, barring both her and her staff from the National Assembly premises, locking her office, and requiring her to surrender all Senate properties.
This recommendation raised several procedural questions beyond the compressed timeline. The severity of the sanctions, coupled with the dismissal of her petition on procedural grounds rather than substantive investigation, suggested potential over-reach.
The full Senate approved this recommendation, effectively removing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan from her position until September 2025 and leaving Kogi Central without representation for half a year – all while the newly accepted petition was supposedly under investigation with a four-week timeline.
Perhaps most remarkably, Senate spokesman Senator Yemi Adaramodu dismissed the entire controversy as mere “content creation,” stating on Channels Television that these events could be seen as “Senators simply enjoying themselves” and insisting that “the image of the Senate remains intact.”
This characterisation – trivialising allegations of sexual harassment as entertainment or publicity stunts – reflected troubling institutional disregard for gender-based misconduct claims and represented a stark contrast to growing public concern over accountability and transparency.
Broader Implications: Gender, Power, and Institutional Integrity
The Natasha-Akpabio controversy transcends individual personalities, illuminating systemic challenges facing Nigeria’s democratic institutions:
- Women constitute less than 10% of Nigeria’s National Assembly, creating profound power imbalances. The treatment of sexual harassment allegations – dismissing them as “content creation” rather than matters for serious investigation – reinforces barriers to women’s political participation.
- The case highlights how procedural technicalities can potentially be weaponised to avoid addressing substantive allegations. While procedure is essential to governance, it should facilitate rather than obstruct accountability.
- The Senate’s handling of allegations against its own President raises questions about internal accountability mechanisms. When institutions investigate themselves, particularly regarding their leadership, structural conflicts emerge that undermine public confidence.
- The Senate’s quick disposition of serious allegations behind closed doors, followed by dismissive public statements, contradicts democratic principles of transparency. Sexual harassment allegations involving public officials require transparent, impartial processes that reassure citizens of institutional integrity.
Legal Analysis
From a legal perspective, the Senate’s handling of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case reveals several concerning procedural anomalies that undermine due process and natural justice principles.
First, while the initial rejection of her petition may have had valid procedural grounds if it was indeed self-signed, the subsequent handling of the second petition (properly submitted through constituents) reveals a troubling pattern. The Committee’s decision to recommend a six-month suspension on the very same day the petition was formally accepted with a four-week investigation timeline suggests the disciplinary process was divorced from the substance of the allegations – essentially punishing the senator while simultaneously agreeing to investigate her claims.
More fundamentally, Senate President Akpabio’s continued role in presiding over proceedings directly concerning allegations against him violated basic principles of natural justice. While Senate Standing Orders specifically address only pecuniary conflicts, the principle that “no one should be a judge in their own case” is a cornerstone of jurisprudence that transcends codified rules. Akpabio’s failure to recuse himself created an inherent structural bias that fundamentally compromised the entire process.
The six-month suspension is a grossly disproportionate sanction, coupled with additional punitive measures like office closure and staff restrictions, suggests potential abuse of disciplinary powers, particularly concerning when directed at a senator raising sexual harassment allegations against leadership.
Perhaps most troublingly, the suspension effectively disenfranchises the constituents of Kogi Central, who will lack Senate representation for half a year. This raises constitutional questions about whether internal disciplinary measures can justifiably override citizens’ right to representation for such extended periods without extraordinary justification.
My Position
The Senate’s handling of this matter represents a profound failure of institutional integrity and due process. By weaponising procedural technicalities to silence serious allegations of sexual harassment, the Senate leadership has demonstrated an alarming willingness to sacrifice accountability for self-protection. The actions taken against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan reveal a deeply troubling pattern that undermines public trust in one of Nigeria’s most important democratic institutions.
Senate President Akpabio’s refusal to recuse himself from proceedings concerning allegations against him constitutes an egregious violation of natural justice principles. His continued presiding over these matters – from accepting the petition to directing its referral – creates an unmistakable conflict of interest that taints the entire process. This failure of leadership demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of basic ethical principles or a deliberate disregard for them.
The Senate’s procedural contradiction is especially damning: approving a draconian six-month suspension on the same day it formally accepted a petition with a four-week investigation timeline. This reveals the disciplinary process as a transparent attempt to silence a whistleblower rather than pursue truth. By punishing Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan before investigating her claims, the Senate has effectively declared that protecting leadership from accountability takes precedence over uncovering potential misconduct.
The disproportionate punishment appears unmistakably retaliatory. This excessive sanction, combined with salary freezing, office closure, and staff restrictions, sends a chilling message to any legislator who might consider reporting misconduct by leadership: speak out and face professional destruction.
For ordinary Nigerians struggling with workplace sexual harassment, the Senate’s actions represent a devastating setback. If a federal senator – a powerful woman with public platform and institutional protections – can be so swiftly silenced and punished for raising allegations against leadership, what hope exists for vulnerable citizens with far fewer resources and protections? The Senate’s handling of this case reinforces the culture of silence that enables harassment to persist, as victims witness the severe professional consequences that can befall even those in positions of power who dare to speak out. This high-profile case may discourage countless victims across Nigeria from seeking justice, perpetuating cycles of harassment and abuse in workplaces throughout the country.
Most disturbing is the Senate’s apparent indifference to disenfranchising Kogi Central’s constituents, who will lack representation for half a year. This cavalier disregard for citizens’ constitutional right to representation suggests the Senate leadership views democratic principles as dispensable when they become inconvenient. Without independent oversight mechanisms and mandatory recusal standards, the Senate has proven itself incapable of self-regulation when allegations implicate its leadership – a fundamental failure that undermines Nigeria’s democratic foundation.
Written by: Ataguba S. Aboje, Esq, FIP, AIGP, CIPM, CIPP/E, CC ,Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme of Nigeria Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales Fellow of Information Privacy, atagubaaboje@nigeriabar.ng
Revolutionizing Legal Research: "Civil Litigation Serial" and "Encyclopedia of Nigerian Case Law" Now Available
"Civil Litigation Serial" and "Encyclopedia of Nigerian Case Law Principles and Authorities" are must-have resources for legal practitioners, offering comprehensive insights into civil litigation and case law principles. The first volumes are now available for purchase through independent booksellers across Nigeria. Call 07051822705 to get your copies today! ______________________________________________________________________ Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!
To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
