By Mon-Charles Egbo
Unarguably, the 10th Senate is now neck-deep into its most sensational defining moments since its inception. Its integrity and by extension, the national assembly, is on trial.
But for the record, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension was a sequel to her unruly conduct on the floor of the Senate.
Again, and so far, the president of the senate, Godswill Akpabio did not sexually harass Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
However, there was indeed a very close relationship between Natasha and Akpabio.
For example, both of them have the same day of birth which could have been marked individually, but Natasha sacrificed her celebration just to honour Akpabio’s event at his Akwa Ibom State.
Furthermore, Natasha was not only a first-timer; she came to the senate about six months after her colleagues were inaugurated, yet she was assigned the chairmanship of a ‘juicy committee’ in addition to being nominated to represent Nigeria at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU. In other words, she stepped into bigger shoes than her legs, though as a deliberate policy, all four female senators head committees.
So in summary, what has thrown the senate into this messy situation is a relationship breakdown between Akpabio and Natasha where the latter is seemingly on a vendetta mission.
Then instructively, the unfortunate escalation of the feud was facilitated by those who ‘love’ Akpabio more than the rest of us. They are responsible for this avoidable attack on our democracy. Their ‘love’ for Akpabio is merely driven by regional sentiments, his office and of course, President Bola Tinubu’s political interest. Impliedly, it is this cupboard love which undermines national interest that has boxed the Senate into this tight corner.
To begin with, there was an outburst during the plenary wherein Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged victimization against Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
Two days later, she took to national television to add that she had been sexually harassed by Godswill Akpabio on two particular occasions. She emphasized that it was her refusal to succumb to the pressure that put her in a disadvantaged position culminating in her removal as chairman of the Committee on Local Content and also reallocation of her seat.
Meanwhile, it was her refusal to take up her newly assigned seat and the refusal of Akpabio to allow her to speak from her old sitting position that triggered the outburst which indeed, violated the privileges of the senators. The anger and resentment of the senators were to be aggravated by the television outing. She could have exploited all the internal mechanisms to address her concerns rather than exposing the institution to public ridicule.
But as condemnable as her actions are, it was the ensuing reactions that did worse harm.
This is because actions that are lacking in strategy and tact ultimately undermine target goals and objectives, despite the genuineness of the intentions.
In this context, Natasha made an allegation that cast doubt on the integrity of Akpabio, both as a senator and an embodiment of the most critical arm of the federal government. But rather than perceive it as a national concern given that the Senate of the Federal Republic was under attack, it was reduced to a war of attrition between the two senators.
Apart from his wife, those who ‘love’ Akpabio more than the rest of us allowed primordial sentiments to becloud their senses of judgment. The old-fashioned mentality of “we and they” is today elevated to a towering height where no one remembers any longer why she was suspended in the first place.
Within hours after Natasha’s outburst at the senate, an aide of the senate president took to social media to cast aspersions on her, describing her in the most derogatory manner to the extent of writing that Natasha puts on transparent dresses to the senate.
Similarly, a principal officer of the senate variously rose in media defence of the senate president and went all out against Natasha including telling Nigerians how Natasha had six children by six husbands, among others.
Yet again, within hours after Natasha’s television presentations, the senate president’s wife understandably driven by emotion, held a press conference in defence of her husband. Amidst her arguments, she expressed an opinion that Natasha’s husband was certainly not in support of what the wife said about and against Akpabio. This was immediately followed by a protest against Natasha by some women at Uyo, Akpabio’s Akwa Ibom state capital calling her names.
Meanwhile, Natasha had slammed a suit against the office and person of the senate president for defamation by the aide of Akpabio who was also joined as a defendant.
Equally not done by the media defence of her husband, Akpabio ‘s wife instituted a case of defamation against Natasha.
Then expectedly, Natasha’s husband issued a public statement admitting that Akpabio indeed harassed Natasha sexually and that he had earlier confronted Akpabio on the matter.
It was at this point that a cross-section of Nigerians called for a thorough investigation of the weighty allegations. Raising concerns about the impact of the issue on the image and reputation of the federal legislature, they were unanimous that Akpabio should vacate his office pending the conclusion of the suggested probe.
But, except for ignorance or mischief, this call is overtly untenable because a mere allegation is not sufficient for any leader to step aside. History is replete with cases where officeholders were removed when it became necessary. So, if Akpabio is found wanting, he knows that nothing spares him. Not even those who ‘love’ him more than the rest of us.
Continuing, Akpabio’s spokespersons variously absolved their principal of the allegations, rightly faulted the calls for Akpabio’s resignation and remarkably, hinted that the allegation stemmed from a gang-up against Akpabio because he is from the South-South geo-political zone of the country and also that Natasha was avenging her removal from the ‘juicy’ committee.
Still on national television, former senator Florence Ita-Giwa argued that it was infantile and questionable for Natasha to allege sexual harassment, having gone through the rigours of elections. Does this imply that sexual harassment is either common or non-existent in the Senate?
As for Senator Ireti Kingibe, her only concern was that, of all the four female senators, Natasha has been the only one who has enjoyed the best of privileges. Whatever this connotes is left to conjecture but it asserts that there was a rosy era for Akpabio and Natasha.
Fast forward! There were protests for and against Akpabio at the gate of the national assembly with the latter receiving a bloody nose from the security operatives.
Meanwhile, the senate had activated its committee on ethics, privileges and public petition to review Natasha’s disruptive conduct at the plenary.
But following the senate spokesperson’s modest argument that the senate was not investigating the sexual harassment allegations because there was no complaint before the senate, Natasha was to formalise her allegation with a petition which was also referred to the same committee.
It is noteworthy that in all these, Akpabio was loudly silent.
But curiously, even before the submission of Natasha’s petition, the chairman of the committee had publicly and vehemently defended Akpabio even when the committee had yet to look into the allegations.
Then at this point, Senator Akpabio spoke! He denied the allegation of sexual harassment and challenged Natasha to prove him wrong. To deepen this, he allowed Natasha to present her petition. There is no better way to kick-start a fair hearing, even though some of his comments after the suspension tend to negate this!
Instructively again, Natasha had secured a court injunction restraining the committee from taking action about her outburst on the floor of the Senate aware of the outcome. But the committee bungled the opportunity to rescue Akpabio. Rather than obey the ruling of the court and possibly hear the allegation of sexual harassment, it not only went ahead but shifted its sitting date forward and recommended a six-month suspension for Natasha in addition to dismissing her sexual harassment petition on a technical ground. However, the petition was billed to fail ab initio. Yes! Akpabio was openly disparaged for being “emotional” by allowing the presentation in the first place.
Not deterred, Natasha presented another petition which was endorsed by her constituents. And again, it was referred to the same committee before she was eventually suspended.
Given the barrage of backlash that has continued to trail the suspension, especially relative to the silence on the unruly conduct of Natasha, the senate majority leader issued a statement stressing the core reasons for Natasha’s suspension. Yet he, being a lawyer, was silent on why the Senate was questionably hasty in its action despite even the pendency of a valid court rule.
By this singular act, the senate lost an opportunity to redeem itself and particularly, Akpabio.
Hence, Natasha, being escorted out of the chamber upon suspension, had threatened that “this injustice will not be sustained”. She took her quest for justice to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, thereby further internationalizing the matter. Her co-delegate from Nigeria did not instantly counter Natasha but chose to wait for the close of the session before reading the same statement by the senate majority leader to a non-existent audience.
Then back home, there was a solidarity protest for Akpabio at the United Nations building in Abuja preceded by the second vote of confidence in Akpabio by the senate.
Empirically, it was the actions and inaction of the committee on ethics, privileges and public petition that truly represent the injustice that “will not be sustained”. After all, “action begets reaction”.
For instance, how the issue of the adjustment of the sitting arrangement was overshadowed by the allegation of sexual harassment has made a mess of the integrity of the Senate and particularly, its president.
Also, apart from the poor conduct of the committee, when seats are rearranged, is it a convention for the affected senators not to be notified formally? If not, then a ‘lover’ has created a war front for Akpabio except the communication was a collective decision.
Again, Natasha, in her outburst on the floor of the Senate, did not say anything about being sexually harassed. No doubt, she might have made up her mind, but logically, her resort to the media platform was in reaction to what the aide of Akpabio wrote about her. Similarly, her husband might not have joined the battle had Akpabio’s wife not challenged him.
Equally, there could not have been protests at the national assembly had Uyo women not fired the first salvo and also, the allegation could not have gained traction in some quarters had there not been insinuation of regionalism and mindless invasion of Natasha’s marital privacy.
So, inferentially once again, the opportunity she was denied to either prove her case or incur further wrath of the senate is now abundantly offered to her at the court of public opinion.
But in the final analysis, it is Akpabio that has a lot to lose. Until this allegation of sexual harassment is trashed formally, the image and reputation or public goodwill that translates to huge political capital at the appropriate time will continue to elude him. It is not about defending him with desperation but about enhancing opportunities to establish his innocence. Votes of confidence, protests and advocacies do not, and cannot constitute proof of innocence. Those concerned should understand that attacking individuals and their comments or offending the sensibilities of dissenting voices only aggravates issues otherwise this is certainly how not to love Akpabio.
Egbo is a parliamentary affairs analyst.
