Natasha Akpoti and Godswill Akpabio
By Fidelis Duker
The Natasha Akpabio situation has sparked a great deal of sensationalism, emotionalism, and societal bias. Let’s take a step back and analyze the facts rationally:
1. Senator Natasha Akpoti was assigned a new seat by the Clerk of the House, a decision made at the discretion of the Senate President and in accordance with the House rules that all 109 Senators have agreed to. Isn’t it a fundamental expectation that everyone adheres to these established rules?
2. Natasha rejected the seat and began to shout in a manner that was uncivil and disrespectful towards the Senate President—not towards Akpabio personally, but towards the office he holds. While she was loud and disruptive on live television, the Senate President maintained that he could not acknowledge her due to the established procedure that requires recognition from one’s designated seat. In an effort to minimize further embarrassment to the Senate, a female sergeant-at-arms had to escort her out. Her behavior was unbecoming of a Senator.
3. Following this incident, Akpabio’s media aide, Patrick Mfon, made a derogatory comment on social media, disparaging Senator Akpoti and referring to her in a morally questionable manner. This type of objectification is unacceptable.
4. In response, Natasha promptly filed a defamation lawsuit against Patrick Mfon and Akpabio—stress on the term "defamation." It would be prudent for Mfon to prepare his explanation for this situation.
5. Subsequently, she took to radio and television to allege intimidation and sexual harassment, claiming that Akpabio made inappropriate comments at his Ikot Ekpene residence in the presence of her husband and continued these advances at his Abuja office. These allegations warrant a proper investigation.
6. Akpabio’s wife quickly reacted, taking legal action against Natasha for emotional and sexual harassment. This issue is now in court, where it will be resolved.
7. Shortly after, Natasha's husband sent a letter indicating that he was aware of the alleged advances, despite Natasha’s earlier statement on television suggesting otherwise. This contradiction raises questions.
8. At the next plenary session, Natasha went to her assigned seat and requested to present a petition regarding sexual harassment. The Senate President allowed her to present the petition, but then another Senator pointed out that a related case was already in court. Natasha clarified that the ongoing court case concerned defamation, not sexual harassment. Unfortunately for her, the petition was signed by her, violating House rules, which dictate that a Senator cannot sign and present their own petition; this should be done by another person .... another house rule she should know.
9. On the same day, she was supposed to appear before the Committee on Ethics and Privileges regarding her misconduct concerning the seating arrangements. However, she refused to attend after seeking a court order to prevent the committee from convening. Other invited witnesses still attended and testified, and this was broadcast for all to see. Why would she avoid a committee sitting if she has a case.
10. The committee's report on Senator Natasha’s misconduct during the plenary was submitted, and the developments following this are well-documented. For those who may not know, the sexual harassment petition has been resubmitted by Natasha, now signed by her husband. We await the outcome.
My position on the issue
1. Natasha’s behavior and lack of decorum should be condemned, and this applies to all Senators; maintaining decorum is essential. I recall I supported her when senate president made a disrespectful comment about night club which he apologised ..... i expected Natasha to apologise and go to her new seat and then present her petition if any at that time. So the suspension was in order but the 6 months may be too harsh for the offence.
2. The Senate President was under no obligation to step down regarding the allegations of misconduct, as Natasha displayed disrespect towards both the office and her colleagues. It had nothing to do with sexual harrasment. PROCEDURE
3. Natasha should actively follow up on the sexual harassment petition, ensuring the committee hears her out and she presents her evidence.
4. The Senate President must refer the sexual harassment petition to the appropriate committee and recuse himself from that position pending the outcome.
5. Upholding the integrity of the Senate demands these actions be taken.
6. I deliberately refused to mention other individuals and interests whom I reffer to
MEDDLESOME INTERLOPERS (Senators Ita Giwa, Kingibe, Nwaboyi and Reno) because they are not directly involved in the issues :
1. Misconduct on the floor of the senate
2. Sexual Harrasment
Nigerians must grow up and stop being emotional about issues rather follow procedure.
Fidelis Duker is a media practitioner and writes from Calabar
0 Comments