Women are grossly under-represented in Nigeria’s governance structures and to zero-in on both the sexual and political harassment of a female legislator is a disservice to our democracy. Such action has legitimised attacks on the freedom of expression, encouraged intimidation, and institutionalised sexual harassment in public spaces. All enlightened opinion cannot but demand the immediate reinstatement of Senator Natasha and a stop to reckless intimidation and harassment of legislators in the opposition…
Yesterday, senators “overwhelmingly”, or rather, shamelessly, passed a vote of confidence in the Senate president, Godswill Akpabio, despite the sexual harassment allegation levelled against him by Kogi Central Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. Nigerians have still not recovered from the shame displayed in how votes are taken in the Senate, as the viral video of the voice vote episode continues to circulate. The Senate president had proposed a motion that after Natasha’s six-months suspension, she would still have to apologise before she might be re-admitted into the Senate. He called for the voice vote and the overwhelming majority said “NAY.” He decided they did not hear him well and repeated the motion, again, the majority said “NAY.” The same thing happened the third time when the almighty Senate president decided to announce that the “Ayes” have it.
The meaning of this incident is clear. Senators have had their mandates confiscated by President Akpabio and whatever he decides to announce is the absolute law in the upper chamber. The Senate is the highest expression of political tyranny in contemporary Nigeria, where the “distinguished” are not allowed to vote against a decision of their tyrant.
|
|
There was, therefore, no surprise that the Senate passed the vote of confidence on the tyrant that runs it. I was, however, surprised that the members of the upper chamber had the temerity to urge Nigerians not to allow the allegations of sexual harassment against their tyrant serve as a distraction from the legislative responsibilities of the Assembly. What sense of responsibility have they portrayed to expect respect from Nigerians. Meanwhile, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, a brave warrior who had accused Mr Akpabio of sexual harassment, had also reported the matter, along with her suspension from the Senate, to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).
I believe that the evidence is clear that the Nigerian Senate’s decision to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months is an unconstitutional move that undermines democracy and sets a dangerous precedent for legislative governance. The suspension of an elected senator contradicts Sections 68 and 69 of the 1999 Constitution, which clearly outline the lawful processes for a legislator to lose their seat. Section 68(1) & (2) states that a legislator’s seat can only be declared vacant under specific circumstances such as resignation, defection, conviction, or recall by constituents through the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Section 69 stipulates that the recall process is the only constitutional means for removing an elected legislator, making the Senate’s decision legally baseless. By suspending Senator Natasha, the Senate has effectively denied the people of Kogi Central Senatorial District their right to representation, an action that constitutes an abuse of power.
|
|
|
|---|
A majority of members appear to oppose the reckless behaviour of their bosses but are afraid of losing their privileges. They know that they should have questioned the impartiality of the Senate president, Godswill Akpabio, in handling the matter in which he is the main accused person but did nothing. Even more troubling is the decision the Senate’s Ethics Committee, clearly influenced by the leadership, to dismiss the allegations of sexual harassment against Akpabio without a fair and neutral review.
Many judicial rulings have consistently declared legislative suspensions unlawful. They include key cases such as Honourable Dino Melaye v House of Representatives (2009), where the Federal High Court ruled that legislative chambers lack the authority to suspend elected members. “In Ali Ndume v Senate President & Ors (2018), the Court of Appeal nullified the senator’s suspension, reinforcing the principle that lawmakers cannot be arbitrarily removed by their peers. Similarly, House of Assembly v Hon. Danna (2003) established that only the judiciary or the electorate have the power to remove an elected official. The Senate is knowledgeable about these rulings but deliberately decided to disregard the law simply because the Senate president is angry with a colleague that has accused him of sexual harassment. There has been a lot of grumblings within the Senate but the cowardly members simply don’t have the balls to challenge the tyranny they are subjected to by their own leadership.
A majority of members appear to oppose the reckless behaviour of their bosses but are afraid of losing their privileges. They know that they should have questioned the impartiality of the Senate president, Godswill Akpabio, in handling the matter in which he is the main accused person but did nothing. Even more troubling is the decision the Senate’s Ethics Committee, clearly influenced by the leadership, to dismiss the allegations of sexual harassment against Akpabio without a fair and neutral review. By so doing, they violate Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to a fair hearing.
It is important to recall the case of the Speaker of the Bauchi State House of Assembly versus Hon. Rifkatu Samson Danna (2017). This classic case defined the issue of suspending a legislator from his/her functions in a clear manner. The following are the facts of the case: The Respondent in that case was a member of the Bauchi State House of Assembly and she was suspended indefinitely. She filed a Suit at the Bauchi State High Court questioning the Resolution of the House. Judgment was delivered in her favour; the House contested the judgement at the Court of Appeal, which however affirmed the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal stated that the law maker, not being an employee of the House, can neither be suspended nor have her entitlements i.e. salary and other allowances, withheld.
…the principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (no one should be a judge in their own case) has been completely disregarded in this matter on the unconstitutional punishments meted out to Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. The idea of sending out legislators who oppose the ruling party is a very direct threat to democracy and we as citizens should not allow the legislature to be turned into a tyrannical chamber that blindly supports it leadership, even if the support is under duress.
The court, while taking its decision on the provision of section 111 of the 1999 Constitution, stated that: “The fixing of salaries and wages of the respondent lies within the province of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission under section 111 of the constitution, certainly not the 1st and 2nd appellants. The 1st and 2nd appellants have no right to interfere with the salaries and allowances of the respondent serving as a member of Bauchi State House of Assembly. No Rules or Standing Order of Bauchi State House of Assembly can derogate these rights and privileges conferred on an elected member of the House of Assembly…” The Court further had this to say about the illegality of the suspension:
”Any member of the Bagoro constituency could have timeously challenged the indefinite suspension of their choice representative in the Bauchi State House of Assembly on the grounds that their accrued rights had been violated or breached by the appellants. The conduct of the appellants is the tyranny of the majority against an elected minority of the Bauchi State House of Assembly. Peers of a legislator who suspend the members are deliberately committing the anti-democratic crime of depriving the said member’s constituency from representation in the legislature where they have been legitimately elected by voters.”
Finally, the principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (no one should be a judge in their own case) has been completely disregarded in this matter on the unconstitutional punishments meted out to Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. The idea of sending out legislators who oppose the ruling party is a very direct threat to democracy and we as citizens should not allow the legislature to be turned into a tyrannical chamber that blindly supports it leadership, even if the support is under duress.
Women are grossly under-represented in Nigeria’s governance structures and to zero-in on both the sexual and political harassment of a female legislator is a disservice to our democracy. Such action has legitimised attacks on the freedom of expression, encouraged intimidation, and institutionalised sexual harassment in public spaces. All enlightened opinion cannot but demand the immediate reinstatement of Senator Natasha and a stop to reckless intimidation and harassment of legislators in the opposition but also those in the ruling party who are terrorised into silence.
A professor of Political Science and development consultant/expert, Jibrin Ibrahim is a Senior Fellow of the Centre for Democracy and Development, and Chair of the Editorial Board of PREMIUM TIMES.
