The sexual harassment petition filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against Senate President Godswill Akpabio has sparked controversy within the Senate, with lawmakers disagreeing on the validity of the petition.
Akpoti-Uduaghan submitted the petition on Wednesday, countering claims by Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu that the only petition before the chamber concerned her alleged disobedience of Senate orders. Her action has triggered widespread public debate, with supporters calling for justice and demanding Akpabio’s resignation.
However, some senators have dismissed the petition, arguing that it does not align with Senate procedures. Senate Chief Whip Mohammed Monguno (Borno, APC) cited Order 40, Rule 7 of the Senate Standing Orders, stating that the matter is already before a court and, therefore, outside the Senate’s jurisdiction.
“The matter is in court. Senator Natasha herself has taken legal action, and the wife of the Senate President has also gone to court. The Senate cannot deliberate on it,” Monguno stated.
Senator Yahaya Abdullahi (Kebbi North, APC) suggested referring the matter to the Senate Ethics and Privileges Committee for interpretation, while Senator Opeyemi Bamidele (Ekiti Central, APC) pointed out that Senate rules prevent a lawmaker from personally submitting a petition they authored.
In response, Akpoti-Uduaghan clarified that her harassment petition was not before any court. She explained that the only case in court was a cyberbullying lawsuit filed by Akpabio’s aide, Patrick Udom, over comments about her outfit. She urged Akpabio to allow her petition to be reviewed by the Ethics and Privileges Committee.
Akpabio denied the allegations, emphasizing his respect for women and his track record as a gender-friendly leader. “At no time did I ever harass any woman. I was raised by my late single mother and have always upheld respect for women,” he stated.
The Senate President acknowledged the public debate surrounding the issue and urged Nigerians and the media to refrain from drawing conclusions, emphasizing the need to await the court’s decision.
