By Temitayo Mabayoje

It’s been a bumper week for the Nigerian Senate. Never has it been under this much public scrutiny and a gender-based debate is at the root of it.

Here, I’ll be embarking on a critical analysis of the procedural issues surrounding the treatment of the aggrieved Senator against the backdrop of gender rights in Nigeria.

HOW DID IT ALL START?

On Thursday March 7 2025, Senate President Senator Godswill Akpabio had a very public confrontation with Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in the Senate over a seating arrangement dispute. Leading up to this, Senator Natasha had discovering that her seat, which she had occupied since her being elected as the representative of her constituency, had been reassigned upon resumption of a plenary session on Monday February 25 2025.

Thereafter, Senator Natasha made a number of allegations against both the Senate (financial mismanagement and deep corruption) and the Senate President himself (sexual harassment, spurning advances and victimisation) in an interview on Arise television on Friday February 28 2025. This sent shock waves through the Senate with a number of senators rising up in defence of the Senate President including Senator Neda Imasuen, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions.

Lawyers haven’t been left out of the action with a flurry of activity in the courts also taking place, in particular, the Senate President’s wife filing a defamation lawsuit against Senator Natasha and Senator Natasha in turn filing her own defamation against the Senate President and his Senior Legislative Aide, Mfon Patrick, for remarks made by Mr Patrick about Senator Natasha on a Facebook page recently. “She thinks being a lawmaker is all about ‘pancaking’ her face and wearing transparent outfits to the Chambers.” is what Mr Patrick wrote which Senator Natasha cited as a statement that subjected her to public ridicule, resulted in the loss of business opportunities, and caused damage to her reputation among colleagues and constituents.

ATTEMPTS AT GETTING A PETITION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

As well as voicing her frustrations via the media and seeking redress in the courts, Senator Natasha filed a petition before her peers in the Ethics Committee chaired by Senator Neda Imasuen seeking a hearing on her sexual harassment and victimisation complaints. Her initial petition was dismissed as she had signed it herself and was subsequently told that it was procedurally incorrect to do so.

With a steely determination, Senator Natasha resubmitted her petition this time with the signature of her constituents as permitted by the Senate Standing Orders. Unfortunately for her, the petition was dismissed within minutes of being filed and in a cruelly ironic moment, it was announced by the Senate President himself that Senator Natasha had been suspended from the Nigerian Senate for six months due to misconduct. Specifically, she was found guilty of violating Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (As Amended) and engaging in unparliamentary behavior during plenary sessions.

VIOLATIONS OF THE SENATE RULES

The Senate is indeed a house of order and regulations which need to be adhered to by each member. In light of this, I will examine the specific violations in the ruling against Senator Natasha:

• Refusing to sit in her assigned seat: Despite multiple pleas from the Minority Leader and other ranking Senators, Akpoti-Uduaghan refused to sit in her assigned seat during a plenary session on February 25, 2025.

RESPONSE: according to the Senate Standing, the presiding officers, specifically the Senate President, have the authority to chair plenary sessions and sign votes and proceedings. This suggests that the Senate President may have a role in determining seating arrangements during plenary sessions. In reality, the Senate President almost always determines the seating arrangement. Senator Natasha alleges that the current Senate President made sexual advances towards her in the past and that her refusal to acquiescence to the sexual harassment has led to him victimising her. She believes that his arbitrary reassignment of her seat during the plenary session is in keeping with his persistent victimisation towards her.

Her refusal to sit where she was told to sit was Senator Natasha’s act of defiance borne out of the frustration she felt concerning her treatment at the hands of the Senate President.

Senator Natasha’s refusal to change her seat is indeed an act of contempt however, the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges MUST look to investigate her conduct in light of the allegations against the Senate President. This is the fair and just thing to do in the spirit of openness and transparency.

• Speaking without recognition: She spoke without being recognized by the presiding officer, violating parliamentary practices and procedures.

RESPONSE: in keeping with Senator Natasha’s act of protest for reasons stated above.

Again, the Committee needs to investigate the allegations further in order to determine if Senator Natasha’s act of defiance borne out of her frustrations is justified or not.

• Disruptive behavior: Akpoti-Uduaghan engaged in unruly and disruptive behavior, obstructing the orderly conduct of Senate proceedings.

RESPONSE: what exactly constitutes “disruptive behaviour” according to the Senate? The onus is on the Committee to give examples of disruptive behaviour in light of the fact that there have been several instances in the past were senators have engaged in acts such as physical violence openly and were not penalised for being “disruptive” nor where they suspended. What exactly does the Senate deem as disruptive enough to warrant 6 months suspension with no pay as well as the removal of security personnel?

Again, in the spirit of openness, fairness and transparency, the Senate needs to examine itself and give clear guidance on what exactly it means in light of the allegations being levied at the Senate President.

• Disrespectful remarks: She made abusive and disrespectful remarks against the leadership of the Senate.

RESPONSE: as above, the onus should be on the Committee to clarify what is defines as “disrespectful remarks” in light of Senator Natasha’s allegations against the Senate President.

The Senate’s disciplinary committee investigated these allegations and recommended her suspension. The Senate President, thereafter suspended her for six months. However, the suspension can be lifted earlier if Akpoti-Uduaghan submits a written apology.

RESPONSE: how can the accused (Senate President Akpabio) also be the adjudicator? In itself, this is extremely problematic.

Senator Natasha was also penalised for not attending the hearing – again, this is a clear act of protest in her part. The hearing is being presided over by the man she is accusing of sexual harassment and she is exercising her constitutional right to protest by not attending the hearing which she perceives to be unfair and unconstitutional.

The proper thing to do is for the Senate President to stand down to allow this matter to be fairly adjudicated. There is precedence for this – Bukola Saraki temporarily stood down as Senate President on July 12, 2017 during the debate on the report of the Ethics Committee regarding an allegation that he imported an official car without paying customs duty. This was a commendable display of leadership and accountability, as he chose to step down to ensure the process remained impartial. By doing so, Saraki demonstrated his commitment to upholding the integrity of the Senate and its processes. The question is why can’t Senator Akpabio do the same thing?

I think it important to remind ourselves that the Senate and indeed the entire legislative arm of government is a foundational pillar of our fledgling democracy. What this means is that it should relish these seminal moments and use them as opportunities to scrutinise itself – the Senate must present itself as an open and transparent institution where grievances can be properly dealt with – most especially grievances of such importance.

It’s crucial to note that any action taken by the Committee to address disruptions, unruliness or misbehaviour by a Senator must be consistent with the law and must be viewpoint-neutral.

Is the summary suspension of Senator Natasha for 6 months for misconduct in light of her accusations of sexual harassment against the Senate President who also happens to be the person presiding on the matter, consistent with the laws of Nigeria governing the treatment of women in the work place? Is it viewpoint-neutral? In my opinion, it is not. Furthermore, I call for there to be a remedial review of the current Senate Orders and other legislation governing the conduct of the Senate with regards to petitions against the Senate President. More protection mechanisms need to be built into the Orders to ensure that Senators like Senator Natasha recieve a fairer hearing. Such as explicitly mandating that the Senate President stand down temporarily when petitions against him are brought before the Committee.

THE NIGERIAN PATRIARCHY AND WHY THIS GRIEVANCE IS SO IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS

Nigeria is considered a stiflingly patriarchal country, with societal norms and customs often favouring men over women. This is evidenced by the huge disparity in wealth between Nigerian men and women and well as the low rate of female participation in politics. For example, there are only 4 female Senators presently out of 109.

Women’s rights in Nigeria are protected by the country’s constitution, but in practice, these rights are rarely enforced or respected. Instead the average Nigerian woman who is a victim of casual sexual harassment, assault and abuse in the workplace or otherwise, often has no recourse to the law.

The Nigerian constitution guarantees equal rights for men and women, including the right to equality before the law, freedom from discrimination, and the right to participate in politics and governance. However, despite these constitutional guarantees, women in Nigeria continue to face significant challenges and barriers to exercising their rights.

In the workplace, women in Nigeria often face:

1. Discrimination and harassment: Nigerian women are more likely than men to experience discrimination, harassment, or unfair treatment based on their gender.
2. Limited career advancement opportunities: Nigerian women face more obstacles in advancing their careers, including limited access to training, mentorship, and networking opportunities owing to a number of reasons such as poor statutory maternity benefits in comparison to other more developed countries.
3. Unequal pay: Nigerian women also statistically receive lower pay compared with men for performing the same job.
4. Lack of representation in leadership positions: there is a blatant underrepresentation of women in leadership positions, including in management, executive boards, and governmental affairs.

To address these challenges, Nigeria has enacted several laws and policies aimed at promoting women’s rights and empowerment, including:

1. The National Policy on Women (2000): This policy aims to promote women’s empowerment and equality.
2. The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act (2015): This law prohibits violence against women and provides protection for victims.
3. The Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (2019): This law aims to eliminate pay disparities between men and women.

Despite these efforts, more needs to be done to ensure that women’s rights are fully protected, respected and championed in Nigeria, particularly in the workplace. This matter concerning Senator Natasha is a watershed moment as it’s essentially the first time a woman has openly and publicly made such allegations against a man as powerful as a Senate President. The uproar, widespread outrage and condemnation of her treatment at the hands of the Committee demonstrates that there is need for dialogue with more needing to be done to protect women who are brave enough to speak out without fear of being railroaded by the machinery of the patriarchy.

Temitayo Mabayoje LLB, LLM. Solicitor in England and Wales, Attorney of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.