By Onikepo Braithwaite
It is indeed, rather unfortunate that aside from the fact that Nigeria is nowhere near the 35% female participation in governance, in the last few days, three women in top positions, Senator Natasha Akpoti; former Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Mojisola Lasbat Meranda and Mrs Folake Soetan, the CEO of the Ikeja Electricity Distribution Company have been treated so harshly, bordering on a breach of their fundamental human rights. This is how Nigeria chooses to celebrate her own International Women’s Day 2025 – by degrading women. Shame, shame, shame!
In the Senate, the female representation is less than 4%, while the House of Representatives has only 17 female members out of 360, that is, a little under 5%. Only 5 African countries have crossed the 40% mark of female Legislators – Rwanda leading with 61%, and Ethiopia in fifth place with about 41%. Nigeria has performed extra poorly, in this regard.
Rt Hon. Meranda
Rt Hon.Meranda was forced out of office in a way that is absolutely antithetical to democracy, because some powers that be preferred to have a leader of the Assembly who is obviously not wanted by majority of the members of that House, and whose cup is overflowing with serious allegations of gross misconduct, including financial impropriety. The fact that Rt Hon. Meranda isn’t just an indigene of Lagos, but would probably be the only female Speaker of any Legislature in Nigeria, wasn’t enough to sway the powers that be, and jolt them into realising that Nigeria is lagging far behind when it comes to affirmative action in relation to the female gender in the Legislature.
Violent Attack by the Air Force on Mrs Folake Soetan
In the case of Mrs Soetan, she and her staff were brutalised and terrorised – subjected by the Air Force who invaded their offices, to torture, inhumane and degrading treatment contrary to Section 34(1)(a) of of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution), and for doing their jobs too! Are we in a Police State? It certainly appears as if we are in a Hobbesian state of nature, that is, a state of lawlessness and chaos. The Air Force Officers who ordered and perpetrated these dastardly acts, should be punished accordingly.
Allegations of Sexual Harassment
One cannot condemn sexual harassment enough. It is contrary to Section 34(1) of the Constitution, that is, lack of respect for the dignity of a person. It is unfortunate that many women are subjected to this kind of nonsense, and have to keep silent for fear of reprisals and retribution. I believe that men who engage in sexual harassment of women simply lack the confidence, charm, charisma and wherewithal to woo a woman, and instead misuse their positions of authority to get their way.
Senator Akpoti accused SP Akpabio of ‘Quid Pro Quo’ and Verbal Harassment, the former being “if you agree to my sexual request, I will give you cushy positions and opportunities on the job (whether you deserve it or not)”, and the latter, unwelcome comments of a sexual nature. While I am not in the position to comment on the veracity of Senator Akpoti’s allegations against SP Akpabio as there are not enough facts available to do so, I had expected that by now, Senator Akpoti would have provided proof to buttress her claims; but up till now, the public has heard nothing and it still remains her allegation against SP Akpabio’s denial – nothing more. By now, as in the case of the former Dean of Law, University of Calabar, Professor Cyril Ndifon, the Distinguished Senator should have drowned the environment with proof against SP Akpabio, particularly in the face of the ongoing controversy.
Proof of Sexual Harassment and Prosecution
In Lagos, sexual harassment is felony that attracts 3 years imprisonment upon conviction by virtue of Section 264 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011 which also defines the offence. Section 46 of the Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act 2015 which is applicable only in Abuja, FCT also provides for sexual harassment and sexual intimidation, just like the Ekiti State Gender Based Violence (Prohibition) Law 2019 and Section 262(2) of the Kaduna State Penal Code Law 2017 which prescribes imprisonment of not less than 3 years or a N100,000 fine or both upon conviction for the offence of sexual harassment. Also see Order 14 National Industrial Court Rules.
The fact that sexual harassment is a criminal offence, shows that it has judicial remedy (imprisonment and fine). Unfortunately, I was unable to find a copy of the 2023 Senate Standing Orders, and have to cite that of 2015. By virtue of Order 41(7) of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 As Amended (2015 SSO), the Senate cannot receive a petition on any matter for which there is a judicial remedy. Therefore, if Senator Akpoti presented a petition alleging sexual harassment against SP Akpabio to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges & Public Petition, it is the wrong venue. It is a matter for a court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon.
In order for the Prosecution to discharge the burden of proof in an allegation of sexual harassment, they must prove among other things that: 1) the conduct of the Defendant was targeted against their gender; 2) the conduct was serious; 3) the conduct was unwelcome, tenacious, even frightening; 4) the Defendant is the perpetrator, and identify the position they hold to be able to effect the harassment against them. Evidence to prove the allegation would include texts and messages containing the unwelcome sexual advances, videos, audio recordings and photos; testimonies of those whom the victim may have confided in about the harassment, or those who may have actually witnessed the harassment; testimony of the victim and other victims who may have experienced the same kind of harassment from the Defendant. So far, the public is yet to be provided with anything that discharges this burden of proof, or any evidence in Senator Akpoti/SP Akpabio’s case.
Illegality of the Suspension of Senator Akpoti
It didn’t start today – that the Nigerian Senate punishes members harshly for daring to publicly dissent, or make public utterances that they perceive to expose them, or bring them into ridicule in the public eye, whether true or not. This isn’t gender-related. Roughly one year ago, I wrote about the suspension of Senator Abdul Ningi; before that, it was about the suspension of Senator Ali Ndume and before that, the suspension of Senator Omo Agege. I have become like a broken record, tautologous, making the same submissions on the same issue, because the various Senate leaderships continue to go down the wrong road when it comes to this suspension issue.
Senator Akpoti didn’t exercise her right to fair hearing, on the allegations of misconduct, disregard for the Senate Rules and gross indiscipline on her part, which is a breach of Section 36(1) of the Constitution. In Kotoye v CBN & Ors (1989) LPELR-1707(SC) per Philip Nnaemeka Agu, JSC, the Supreme Court held that ”Fair hearing anticipated by the Constitution implies that every reasonable and fair minded observer who watches the proceedings, should be able to come to the conclusion that the court or other tribunal has been fair to all parties concerned”. Nigerians are unable to come to this conclusion about the Senate in this matter, as the two pillars of fair hearing, audi alteram partem (both sides must be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua (you cannot be a judge in your own case), were jettisoned.
The news that the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges & Public Petition, which already appeared biased against Senator Akpoti, purporting to suspend her for a period of six months for gross indiscipline and misconduct during the plenary session of February 20, in spite of the plethora of authorities that have declared such punishment of suspension from office, illegal and unconstitutional, certainly came as no surprise to anybody. Is the Senate superior to the Constitution? No! See Section 1(1) of the Constitution on its supremacy and bindingness on all persons and authorities in Nigeria, obviously including the Senate. Any law or SSO that permits an unconstitutional act, is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution. It’s as simple as ABC.
And, that’s why I stated on this page last week thus: “Let them bear in mind that, even though Section 60 of the Constitution allows the National Assembly to regulate their own procedures, they are subject to the Constitution; they shouldn’t forget that the Constitution provides that every constituency must be represented at the various legislative levels, and it would amount to discrimination against any constituency to suspend their representative and deny them legislative representation at whatever level their representative has been suspended – see Section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution and the unreported case of Dino Melaye & 4 Ors v The Speaker of the House of Representatives & Ors FHC/ABJ/CS/460/2010”. In that case, Dino Melaye and others were suspended for a legislative session of one year, for disrupting proceedings and unruly behaviour in the House of Representatives. The court held that their suspension for such a period of time was illegal and unconstitutional, on the ground that the Standing Orders of the House only allowed suspension for 14 days. In Ali Ndume v Senate President & Anor 2018, the court declared Senator Ndume’s suspension from the Senate for six months illegal and unconstitutional. Similarly, in Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly v Rifikatu Samson Danna (2017) 49 W.R.N. where the Respondent was suspended from the Bauchi House of Assembly indefinitely, the Court of Appeal held that the Respondent not being an employee of the House, could neither be suspended, nor the salaries and allowances withheld. Also see Section 79 of the Constitution. Interestingly, the Court of Appeal further held that, any member of the Respondent’s constituency could have challenged their representative’s indefinite suspension, on the ground that their accrued rights had been violated or breached by the Appellant. The court further described the actions of the Bauchi House in suspending the member and withholding of salaries, as “the tyranny of the majority against an elected minority of the Bauchi State House of Assembly”. This appears to apply to Senator Akpoti too.
Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila’s 2016 Comments on Suspension from the Legislature
In 2016, I had read a news report in Daily Post (October 5, 2016 to be precise) in which Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, as the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, declared as unconstitutional the suspension of Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin for one year, after he made an allegation that the budget was padded. Hon. Gbajabiamila had stated thus: “I find it difficult as a Constitutional Lawyer, to accept that our rules can actually pass constitutional muster, if put to test. If you suspend a member for a year, you are effectively suspending his constituency and the people he represents, from participation in participatory democracy….For every constituency, it is a right to be represented in the National Assembly, not a privilege that can be taken away…..If, for instance, an issue comes up in a member’s constituency, that requires Federal attention or legislative address, who do they go to? We cannot take away a mandate, given by the people or short change a constituency. In law, the seat of a representative is held in trust for the constituency”. As far back as 2016, Hon. Gbajabiamila had hit the nail firmly on the head! This position cannot be faulted.
Senate Standing Orders
Senator Akpoti’s behaviour on February 20, 2025, the day she refused to take her seat, even though it may have been contrary to Orders 6.1 & 6.2 of the Senate Standing Orders 2023 As Amended (2023 SSO), shouldn’t have attracted a punishment of more than sending her home for the rest of that Legislative day (see Order 67(4) of the 2015 SSO). Order 67(4) of the 2015 SSO also allowed for a maximum 14 day suspension after naming, while Order 67(8) allowed for the suspension of a Senator for a period of time to be determined by the Senate. These Standing Orders, if they are the ones replicated in the 2023 SSO, are unconstitutional, and cannot stand in the face of Section 1(1) & (3) of the Constitution – they are void to the extent of their inconsistency. Also see Chapters VIII & IX of the 2015 SSO Behaviour of Senators in the Senate & Order, and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2018.
The suspension Senator Akpoti for 6 months will deny her constituents representation in the Senate for that period of time, and this amounts to denying them their right to participate in government, also breaching their right to freedom from discrimination contrary to Sections 14(2)(c) & 42(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Conclusion
I found it rather bizarre that the Senate Committee also instructed that Senator Akpoti refrain from parading herself as a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, during the period of her unlawful suspension. On which authority? Coming from the highest lawmaking body in the land, such a statement is discreditable, as it shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution. Senator Akpoti was duly elected by her constituents and not her colleagues in the Senate. She can be recalled by her constituents, by the procedure set out in Section 69 of the Constitution; the Senate has no authority to give such an instruction regarding her status as a Senator. This isn’t USA where Congress can expel a member, with the concurrence of two-thirds of that House. See Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
In the UK, there is an independent Panel, not constituted by Members of Parliament (MP) to look into complaints bordering on bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct by MPs. When an MP is suspended for 14 calendar days, the UK Recall of MP’s Act 2015 has a triggering provision, allowing a by-election subsequent upon a Recall Petition to replace such an erring member. Like the UK, having an independent panel of investigation constituted by non-Legislators to look into petitions raised against National Assembly members, would certainly take care of the issue of audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua.
Lest I forget, the other side of the argument is that, though he hasn’t been charged with any criminal offence, SP Akpabio is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty (Section 36(5) of the Constitution) and enjoys the fundamental rights that the Constitution guarantees all Nigerians. He may even be able to seek redress for defamation of character, should Senator Akpoti be unable to provide evidence to support her claim.
For now, there’s not much to celebrate about International Women’s Day in Nigeria. The country appears to be regressing, as far as women’s rights and participation in governance are concerned.
Happy Belated International Women’s Day!
