OTONG EKERUDE
Despite her rapid political ascent and media-savvy persona, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has, in a short span of time, committed a series of misjudgments that have not only undermined her credibility but also tested the patience of the Nigerian Senate and public conscience.
Here are seven blunders that have defined her turbulent tenure so far:
1. Refusal to Take Her Assigned Seat
In open defiance of Senate protocol, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan refused to take her reassigned seat on the Senate floor—an act that was neither noble nor strategic. On that same day, ten senators were given new seat assignments. The other nine complied without protest. Only Senator Natasha resisted—despite repeated entreaties before plenary began. Rather than utilizing any of the legitimate legislative tools at her disposal to register dissent, she chose instead to stage a theatrical disruption that earned her a swift reprimand and eventual disciplinary action.
The seat reallocation was a routine administrative adjustment following the defection of two senators from the PDP to the APC. But instead of recognizing it as a procedural necessity, Senator Natasha personalized the matter, casting herself as a victim of imagined persecution. What could have been a simple adjustment has since metastasized into a protracted, needless crisis, spawning multiple court actions and deepening institutional tensions. In the Nigerian Senate, symbolism without structure is not protest—it is rebellion without a cause.
2. Alleging Sexual Harassment Without Evidence
In a democracy where sexual harassment claims must be taken with the utmost seriousness, the power of such an allegation lies squarely in its credibility. Yet, immediately after the Senate resolved that she must appear before its Disciplinary Committee, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan rushed to Arise TV and accused the Senate President of a sexual harassment incident she claimed occurred nearly two years earlier—a belated allegation that bore all the marks of an afterthought rather than a long-suppressed truth.
According to her, the alleged incident occurred in Akpabio’s family home and in the presence of her husband—yet she claims the Senate President still invited her back to that same family residence for “quality time.” Stranger than fiction: that a man plotting impropriety would not consider a hotel or private venue, but instead suggest a house where his wife and children reside.
Even more concerning, she provided no evidence to support her claim—no witness, no record, no contemporaneous complaint. Her petition, personally signed and procedurally flawed, was deemed dead on arrival by the Senate. She re-submitted the petition and it was entertained. By offering an unsubstantiated allegation without meeting basic evidentiary or procedural thresholds, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan weaponized accusation while disarming accountability. The question, then, is no longer merely what happened, but why she chose to sidestep due process entirely. Why did she wait this long? Why did she eulogize Akpabio days after the alleged harassment and months after in IPU event at Geneva? Why she did not tell anybody including her husband?
To date, there exists no prima facie case to warrant an investigation or a Senate inquiry. Even her written submission to the Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions contained not a single shred of evidence—only claims, cloaked in outrage, and delivered for maximum media attention.
3. Claiming an Assassination Plot Without Proof
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan crossed a perilous line when she publicly alleged—without a shred of verifiable evidence—that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello conspired to assassinate her. In the arena of politics, hyperbole is often indulged. But to accuse sitting and former high-ranking officials of plotting murder, absent any corroboration, is not political rhetoric—it is reckless incitement masquerading as victimhood.
What, one must ask, did she expect? That those she accused of such a grave crime would remain silent? Predictably, they turned to the law, invoking provisions on criminal defamation and petitioning the police. When law enforcement acted and initiated charges, she cried foul—insisting that they ought to have sued her in civil court instead. But justice is not a buffet where the accuser chooses the menu. You cannot slap a man and dictate whether he responds with a feather or a fist. In a society governed by law, actions have consequences—and wild accusations have legal ones.
4. Publishing a Satirical Apology as Political Theatre
This was one of the most needless and silly blunders of all. Her so-called “apology”—a satirical, self-serving document—undermined the seriousness of the Senate’s disciplinary proceedings and trivialized a matter that deserved sober reflection. Instead of expressing remorse or seeking reconciliation, she chose to create content. The chamber is not a comedy club, and governance is not satire. Up till now I still cannot understand what kind of demon seized her mind and caused her to take this dance of shame in the marketplace. It was as needless as it was silly.
5. Refusing to Appear Before the Senate Ethics Committee
By shunning the invitation of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, she displayed contempt not just for her colleagues, but for the institution she claims to represent. In any civil society, protesters must be willing to answer questions. Silence in the face of scrutiny is not courage—it is evasion and defiance. If she had honored the invitation, her sentence may not have been a so severe. Or maybe she would have earned a simple warning and given an opportunity to make amends in the Senate.
6. Making Organ Harvesting Allegations Without Evidence
Perhaps the most grotesque of her claims was that the Senate President was linked to the killing of Iniubong Umoren and the harvesting of her organs. That such a serious accusation was made without a single piece of forensic, eyewitness, or circumstantial evidence reflects a level of recklessness that borders on defamation and incitement.
7. Arguing That Order Ten Could Be Raised From Anywhere
In her attempt to justify her refusal to comply with the Senate’s seating arrangements, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan advanced a startling claim: that Order Ten—a point of order—could be raised from anywhere, even from an unassigned seat. This argument not only contravenes the clear stipulations of the Senate’s Standing Orders but also exposes a troubling lack of familiarity with basic parliamentary procedure.
Her reasoning betrayed more than defiance—it revealed ignorance. It became embarrassingly evident that she may never have read the Standing Orders in full. Her understanding of Order Ten seemed based solely on the routine observation that any senator who invokes it in Chambers is usually recognized. From that narrow impression, she leapt to the absurd conclusion that Order Ten could be raised from anywhere—perhaps even from the washroom.
In a chamber governed by rules, not theatrics, such a claim does not just weaken her case—it undermines the very seriousness of the legislative office she occupies.
Final Reflection
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan does not have any public service or public administration experience. Being in the Senate is punching above her weight. This is like appointing a lawyer who has never argued a case in court into the Supreme Court. These seven blunders represent more than tactical errors—they signal a pattern of ignorant theatrical disruption over legislative substance. In her attempt to light a fire under the Senate, she may have only succeeded in burning her own credibility and exposing her ignorance.