Senate Committee Dismisses Natasha’s Petition Against Akpabio
In a move that has sparked controversy and debate, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions has dismissed the sexual harassment and abuse of office petition filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against Senate President Godswill Akpabio. The decision, made during a session held on March 5, 2025, has raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of the Senate’s handling of the matter, as well as questions about the legal procedures involved in the dismissal.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had earlier accused Akpabio of sexual harassment and abusing his office, alleging that his conduct had violated several ethical standards and legal norms. However, the Senate Committee, chaired by Senator Neda Imasuen, rejected the petition outright, declaring it “dead on arrival.” The committee’s dismissal was based on procedural violations and legal constraints that it claimed rendered the petition invalid.
The Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions is tasked with investigating complaints against members of the Senate, ensuring that ethical standards and the code of conduct are adhered to by lawmakers. In the case of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition against Akpabio, the committee determined that there were significant procedural violations that could not be overlooked.
Chairman of the Committee, Senator Neda Imasuen, explained that the petition submitted by Akpoti-Uduaghan was not endorsed by another individual, as required by the Senate Standing Orders. According to Order 40 of the Senate Standing Orders, any petition submitted to the Senate must be endorsed by a third party, typically a Senator, who supports the content of the petition.
However, Akpoti-Uduaghan signed the petition herself without obtaining such an endorsement. This failure to follow the procedural requirements, according to the Committee, rendered the petition invalid and in violation of Senate rules. Imasuen pointed out that this breach of protocol was one of the main reasons for the dismissal of the petition.
“The petition was dead on arrival,” Imasuen stated. “It failed to meet the procedural requirements as outlined in the Senate Standing Orders. The petition should have been endorsed by another Senator, not just signed by the petitioner herself. The violation of this rule left the petition procedurally invalid.”
While some critics argue that this was a technicality used to dismiss a serious complaint, others have pointed out that following the established procedures is crucial in ensuring the integrity and fairness of the Senate’s proceedings.
Another key reason cited by the Committee for dismissing the petition was the fact that the matters raised in the petition were already before the courts. Akpoti-Uduaghan had accused Akpabio of sexual harassment and abuse of office, claims that were already being investigated by the judicial system.
Senator Imasuen pointed out that the legal principle of sub judice applied to the case. The sub judice rule prohibits the discussion of matters that are currently being adjudicated in court in any legislative or parliamentary body. This principle is designed to prevent interference with the judicial process and ensure that court cases are decided on their merits without any undue influence from external sources, such as the legislature.
Since Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations were already before the courts, the Senate Committee argued that it had no jurisdiction to address them. Imasuen emphasized that the Senate could not take up the matter as it was already subject to judicial scrutiny, and any further discussion by the Senate would violate the sub judice rule.
“The matters raised in the petition are currently before the courts. Therefore, we are unable to proceed with it under the sub judice rule,” Imasuen explained. “The Senate cannot intervene in a matter that is already being handled by the judiciary.”
This legal constraint was one of the primary reasons for the Senate Committee’s decision to dismiss the petition. The Committee’s adherence to the sub judice rule highlights the delicate balance between the powers of the legislature and the judiciary, and it underscores the importance of respecting the independence of the courts.
The decision to dismiss Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition has sparked mixed reactions from lawmakers, legal experts, and the general public. Some have supported the Senate Committee’s decision, arguing that the rules of procedure must be followed to maintain the integrity of the Senate. Others, however, have expressed disappointment, claiming that the dismissal was a cover-up for serious allegations against Akpabio.
Supporters of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition have criticized the Senate Committee for what they perceive as an unfair dismissal of the case on technical grounds. They argue that the allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of office are serious and merit a thorough investigation, regardless of procedural issues or the sub judice rule. Some have questioned whether the Senate’s handling of the petition was influenced by political considerations, given Akpabio’s high profile as Senate President and his close ties to the ruling party.
One prominent legal expert, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed concern that the Senate’s dismissal of the petition on procedural and legal grounds could set a dangerous precedent. “The Senate is supposed to be a body that upholds justice and integrity. Dismissing serious allegations against a sitting Senate President on a technicality sends the wrong message,” the expert said. “It undermines public confidence in the legislative process.”
On the other hand, there are those who support the Senate’s adherence to procedure. They argue that the dismissal of the petition was based on valid legal grounds and that following the rules is essential for maintaining the Senate’s credibility. “While the allegations are serious, the Senate cannot afford to disregard its own rules,” said another lawmaker. “If we start bypassing procedural requirements, we risk undermining the entire system.”
In light of the Senate Committee’s decision, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan now faces the challenge of determining her next course of action. While the petition has been dismissed by the Senate, she still has the option of pursuing her allegations through the judicial system, where her claims of sexual harassment and abuse of office are currently under investigation.
Akpoti-Uduaghan has been vocal in her accusations against Akpabio, and she has vowed to continue her fight for justice. She has stated that she will not be silenced by the dismissal of her petition in the Senate and will continue to seek legal redress through the courts.
“It is disappointing that the Senate has chosen to dismiss my petition on procedural grounds, but I will not be deterred,” Akpoti-Uduaghan said in a statement following the dismissal. “I remain committed to seeking justice for myself and for all those who suffer from abuse of power and sexual harassment. The truth will prevail, and I will continue to fight for justice, no matter the obstacles.”
Her legal team has indicated that they will pursue the case in the courts and seek to hold Akpabio accountable for his alleged actions. Whether the courts will ultimately find in her favor remains to be seen, but Akpoti-Uduaghan’s determination to seek justice suggests that the legal battle is far from over.
The dismissal of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition also raises important questions about the role of the Senate in upholding ethical standards and accountability within its ranks. The Senate is responsible for ensuring that its members adhere to high standards of conduct, and it is expected to investigate any allegations of misconduct or abuse of office seriously.
In this case, while the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions may have followed the letter of the law in dismissing the petition, it is important to consider whether the Senate’s actions in this matter align with its broader responsibility to ensure accountability. The public’s perception of the Senate’s impartiality and commitment to justice is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the institution.
In the wake of the dismissal, some have called for greater transparency in the way the Senate handles petitions and allegations of misconduct. They argue that the Senate should establish clear and fair processes for investigating complaints against its members, ensuring that every petition is given due consideration regardless of the political or procedural challenges involved.
The dismissal of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition against Senate President Godswill Akpabio has ignited a complex debate about legal procedure, accountability, and justice within Nigeria’s legislative process. While the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions cited procedural violations and the sub judice rule as reasons for the dismissal, critics argue that the matter should have been examined more thoroughly.
As the case continues in the courts, the public will be watching closely to see whether Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations are proven to be true and whether those responsible for any misconduct are held accountable. The Senate’s role in upholding ethical standards and promoting transparency remains a crucial aspect of its credibility, and the events surrounding this petition will undoubtedly have lasting implications for the future of Nigeria’s legislative body.
While the procedural dismissal of the petition may have brought an end to the matter within the Senate, it is clear that the larger fight for justice—both for Akpoti-Uduaghan and for the integrity of the Nigerian Senate—remains ongoing.
