By George Agbakahị, PhD
Much has been said and written about the ongoing saga between the suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Senate President across print, electronic, and social media. The tumultuous and politically charged debate that followed her suspension for alleged misconduct and violations of the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (As Amended) led a faction of her constituents to initiate a recall attempt, culminating in Senator Natasha’s homecoming rally a couple of weeks ago.
However, this gathering appeared to defy a state-imposed ban on political assemblies. Her speech at the rally, which included bold declarations and serious allegations, garnered nationwide attention and sparked discussions about the boundaries between lawful political expression and incitement. During her address, the Senator stated: “Should we be met with or infiltrated by violence, Nigerians should hold Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo, [his predecessor] Yahaya Bello, and Senate President Godswill Akpabio wholly responsible.” She continued with a three-part allegation: “On the 14th of March at 10:30 p.m.… Akpabio told Yahaya Bello to commence my recall, and he would fund it. The second thing he told him was to kill me—and to ensure that my killing should not occur in Abuja but in Kogi State. Lastly, he was to initiate actions that would make it impossible for me to secure the senatorial ticket in the next election.” The seriousness of these claims, and their timing, suggest a deliberate attempt to draw public focus, elevate political tensions, and influence public sentiment surrounding ongoing legal and political processes.
While commenting on the three LNG projects approved by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan referenced Senate President Akpabio, questioning, “How can such resources gotten from the Niger Delta be moved to the North?” She further asserted that she was removed from her position as Chair of the Senate Committee on Local Content for allegedly “using that office to promote the North.” These remarks, invoking regional and religious identity, risk inflaming divisions within Nigeria’s delicate ethno-political balance. By presenting the projects and appointments through an identity-based lens, her rhetoric arguably amplifies historic grievances and may inadvertently revive tensions reminiscent of Nigeria’s civil war era.
Legal and Theoretical Underpinnings.
While the Nigerian Constitution upholds freedoms of expression and assembly, these rights may be lawfully restricted in circumstances where public safety is threatened. Under the Public Order Act (CAP 382), state governments are empowered to regulate gatherings that may incite unrest. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s actions, particularly the public rally amidst legal and political tensions, thus attracted scrutiny and may be seen as breaching the boundaries set by law.
From a legal positivist view, her actions reflect a breach of formally enacted laws, supporting calls for consequences irrespective of motive. A natural law perspective may emphasize justice and fairness but also requires that such principles not be weaponized for personal or political gains. Applying framing theory, the Senator’s presentation of herself as a victim of persecution reflects a strategic communication technique meant to shift public interpretation, mobilize sympathy, and reframe institutional actions as conspirators
A Calculated Challenge to Institutional Credibility.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s speech projected a narrative of political resistance and persecution. Her assertion that, “There’s a whole lot happening right now; a lot is politically motivated. And these people are using the institutions to silence me, and in silencing me, they are silencing you,” casts her as a political underdog, challenging the legitimacy of state institutions. The subsequent claim that she had won “one of four political battles,” following INEC’s suspension of a recall petition, further frames her struggle as a personal and symbolic fight against perceived oppression.
Critics argue that such positioning, particularly when laced with accusations of assassination plots and political exclusion, represents a high-stakes political strategy. By invoking emotionally charged narratives, the Senator may be seeking to build political capital, shape public discourse, and pressure institutions while remaining shielded by democratic protections.
Judicial Intervention and Media Restraint.
Since the controversy began, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has received significant media attention and sympathy both at home and abroad. Renowned international outlets, including The Guardian, Associated Press, the BBC, and most recently the NewYork times, have reported extensively on the matter, highlighting its implications for gender inequality and democratic governance in Nigeria. Many critics, including women’s rights organizations, have denounced her suspension as a retaliatory move likely to stifle whistleblowing and discourage female participation in politics. The incident has amplified global concerns about institutional accountability, transparency, and the fragility of democratic values within Nigeria’s legislative framework. However, much as it is vital to champion women's rights and gender equity, the apparent lack of fortitude and fellowship from other female senators undermines the reliability of her claims. It's commonsensical that her female colleagues in the senate would have bolstered her if gender discrimination were the nucleus of her suspension.
In her response, Justice Binta Fatima Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, April 4, 2025, issued a restraining order barring all parties involved in the suit filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and three others from granting media interviews or making public comments relating to the case. This directive was issued as a precautionary measure to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, prevent media-driven misrepresentation of facts, and ensure that the matter is resolved strictly through legal channels. Given the public nature of the accusations and the political stature of those involved, the court's decision serves as a necessary safeguard against prejudicial commentary that could compromise fair hearing or escalate political tensions.
Conclusion.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s April 1 speech presents a complex intersection of free expression, political defiance, and legal boundaries. Her strategic use of language and identity-based rhetorics and appeals illustrates the broader risks associated with politicizing institutions and regional sentiments. While she positions herself within the framework of conflict theory, where political actors are cast as either oppressors or victims, such framing when unchecked may erode public trust and deepen societal divisions. As the judiciary assumes control over the unfolding legal process, the Nigerian public must carefully distinguish between legitimate grievance and political theatrics, lest the nation's fragile democratic space become a battleground for unchecked rhetoric and escalating disorder.
Dr. George Agbakahị, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress, APC, and South East Leader, Tinubu Support Organization and Member, Directorate of Media and Publicity, PCC, writes from Abuja.