By Lemmy Ughegbe, PhD
In a democracy, people should not punish political dissent, and no one should undermine legitimate mandates. Yet, the unfolding saga surrounding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan casts a troubling shadow over the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic processes.
What seems to be unfolding—from her controversial six-month Senate suspension to a flawed recall petition—less resembles the rule of law and more of a power play veiled in legislative and administrative procedures. This moment calls for scrutiny—not just for Senator Natasha’s sake, but for the health of Nigeria’s democracy.
A seemingly minor matter—a Senate seating shift—sparked a major controversy. Traditionally, the Senate leadership decides who sits where. The Senate considered Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s refusal to relocate violated Senate rules and procedure. Deputy Chief Whip Peter Nwaebonyi asserted that her action was “out rightly outside the provision of our rules, and nothing can remedy it.”
While this may seem a procedural matter at first glance, the timing and context suggest otherwise. A legitimate instruction or a strategic provocation—which was it? The stark difference between the chamber’s lenient treatment of male members’ serious infractions and its swift, harsh response to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s actions indicates possible discriminatory enforcement.
The situation escalated rapidly. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment shortly after a seating controversy. She accused him of sexual harassment, alleging that the Senate President conditioned his support of her motions on her fulfilling his demands. These are weighty accusations that touch on the entrenched gender imbalances and toxic culture women often face in Nigerian politics.
Senator Akpabio refuted the allegations. While some believe Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, others have expressed caution, warning that political rivals sometimes weaponise sexual harassment claims. The stark contrast in viewpoints emphasises the importance of an unbiased and in-depth investigation.
Despite a pending court case questioning the Senate’s jurisdiction, the Senate hastily suspended Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan following an expedited Ethics Committee review. This suspension, based on misconduct claims such as seat refusal and unauthorised interventions, disregards the legal principle of lis pendens, which advises against acting on cases already in court.
This rapid action is particularly troubling when considering established legal norms. Nigerian jurisprudence establishes a two-week limit on suspending elected members by legislative chambers.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended for six months and removed from legislative privileges. The severity of the response implies that her “offence” wasn’t misconduct but accusing a high-ranking official of sexual harassment.
This response seems wildly unbalanced when juxtaposed with the Senate’s treatment of more serious offences. The Senate has responded to financial misconduct, inflammatory speech, and physical altercations with leniency or silence.
The abrupt intensity of this situation indicates not a commitment to order but the suppression of opposing views—particularly those that question established male dominance.
Her suspension was barely over when a recall petition, filed with INEC, emerged. In March 2025, Charity Ijoshe Omole, leading the group “Concerned Kogi Youths and Women,” submitted a petition with reportedly over 250,000 signatures from Kogi Central’s 488,000 registered voters. Supposedly, with signatures from all 902 polling units in the district, the petition arrived with six bags of supporting documents.
Charity Omole, who advises the Kogi State Governor on youth and women’s affairs, says the recall was due to the Senator’s suspension and the subsequent lack of representation for Kogi Central. Yet, some warning signs have appeared.
First, the Corporate Affairs Commission’s data shows that the leading group and “Kogi Central Political Frontier” are not registered. Their petition’s lack of formal recognition undermines its credibility.
Reports claim a sham empowerment program tricked many constituents into signing what they believed to be attendance sheets, which were actually recall petition documents. INEC initially rejected the petition because key contact details were missing. Surprisingly, INEC reversed its decision within a day, stating that it had obtained the necessary information and would continue verification.
Such a sharp reversal warrants critical examination. How could INEC collect and confirm the contact details for more than 250,000 signatories so quickly? Who was the source of the missing data? Why does the Commission’s role appear to be correcting procedure rather than providing neutral judgment?
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan publicly charged INEC with partiality and conspiracy, claiming its staff tutored petitioners and aided in validating a deceitful recall procedure. The gravity of these charges demands prompt clarification.
INEC should publicly disclose its method of retrieving the missing data and subject its verification process to outside experts’ examination. A lack of complete transparency jeopardises public confidence in this crucial Nigerian democratic institution. Civil society and human rights groups are worried that the recall process, meant to be a democratic check, is being abused for political persecution by those in power.
Others have significantly misused the recall provision in the past. The 2017 recall effort targeting Senator Dino Melaye strikingly mirrors current events: widespread signature collection tainted by claims of coercion and bribery, ultimately failing and revealing INEC’s susceptibility to political pressure. The pattern continues with Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, whose case shows recall petitions are weapons of revenge, not accountability.
Charity Omole plays a significant role. Despite her commendable past campaigns against sexual violence, she has dismissed Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s accusations against Senator Akpabio as unfounded. Her dual position as the head of the recall petition and the governor’s appointee rightly raises questions about political meddling. That she was previously associated with Yahaya Bello, Kogi State’s former governor and a declared enemy of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, only exacerbates the problem. It is difficult to dismiss the suspicion that a state-sponsored entity is behind the recall effort.
A disturbing pattern lies at the heart of this: a female senator is targeted through legislative overreach, flawed administrative processes, and political vendettas. In a nation pursuing gender inclusion, this event may discourage women’s participation in politics. As one demonstrator at the “We Are All Natasha” protest said, “This is bigger than Natasha.”
The impact on democracy transcends gender; the consequences are dire. The simple subversion or weaponising of democratic safeguards imperils democracy. Political retribution was never the Constitution’s intended use of the recall process. To be effective, it requires transparent, fair processes and genuine grassroots mobilisation, not elite manipulation.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s political future is not the only thing at stake. At stake are our institutions’ credibility, electoral mandates’ sanctity, and Nigeria’s democratic promise. Impartiality is especially vital in the Senate’s response to sensitive claims of sexual harassment. INEC’s role is to be a neutral arbiter, not a facilitator of political convenience. Civil society must remain watchful and outspoken, protecting the core values of democracy.
Using democratic processes for oppression instead of accountability isn’t democracy—it’s a dress rehearsal for civil dictatorship. Let this serve as a watershed moment—for both Natasha and Nigeria.
Lemmy Ughegbe, PhD writes from Abuja
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645
