Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Accuses INEC of Bias in Recall Petition Process
On March 25, 2025, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, voiced her strong criticism of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), accusing the body of bias in its handling of a petition seeking her recall. The petition, which purportedly contains signatures from over half of the 474,554 registered voters in her district, has sparked a series of allegations and counter-allegations, raising serious questions about the neutrality and credibility of Nigeria’s electoral management body.
The accusation came in the wake of INEC’s decision not to outrightly reject the petition, despite it reportedly being incomplete in terms of required documentation. In a statement issued by INEC on March 25, 2025, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the recall petition but noted that the petition lacked crucial information such as contact details (phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses of the petitioners), which are mandated by the Commission’s Regulations and Guidelines for Recall 2024.
YOU MAY READ
Natasha’s recall: INEC confirms receipt of Petitioners’ contact address, says it has notified Natasha of the petition letter
However, rather than dismiss the petition as deficient, INEC opted to give the petitioners an opportunity to rectify the missing details and continue with the verification process once the required information was provided. This decision was immediately questioned by Akpoti-Uduaghan and her legal team, who accused INEC of taking sides and acting in a manner that was partial to the petitioners.
In a letter dated March 26, 2025, sent by her lawyer, Victor Giwa, Akpoti-Uduaghan condemned the Commission’s handling of the petition. She contended that the Commission had failed to uphold its neutrality and had essentially guided the petitioners on how to amend their submission. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team also argued that INEC had overstepped its bounds, assuming an advisory role that could potentially influence the process in favor of the petitioners.
The recall process, governed by Nigeria’s Electoral Act, allows citizens to initiate the recall of an elected representative under specific circumstances. A recall petition can be presented to the Independent National Electoral Commission if a valid reason is provided and it meets the necessary legal requirements, including the collection of signatures from at least a quarter of the registered voters in the representative’s constituency.
YOU MAY READ
Senator Natasha Recall: Hope rises for Natasha as INEC states that Petitioners are yet to comply with their rules
In this case, the petition seeking Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recall allegedly contains signatures from over 237,277 registered voters, which surpasses the minimum threshold of a quarter of the electorate in the Kogi Central district. However, INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for Recall 2024 are very specific about the procedures that must be followed for such petitions to be valid, and the absence of key contact details raised a red flag for the Commission.
According to the guidelines, a petition must include the contact information of the petitioners in order for the process to move forward. This requirement is intended to ensure that the petitioners are properly identified and can be contacted for verification purposes. The lack of this information was seen as a major flaw in the petition, prompting INEC to issue a statement urging the petitioners to correct the deficiencies.
In her response, Akpoti-Uduaghan, through her legal representative Victor Giwa, accused INEC of showing bias by not immediately declaring the petition invalid. “Your position as disclosed in your press release on March 25, 2025, signed by Sam Olumekun shows that the Commission has taken sides and has become partial in favour of the Petitioners in this case,” the letter stated.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team argued that INEC’s decision to give the petitioners an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in their petition amounted to an improper intervention. The senator asserted that, as per the guidelines, INEC was required to declare the petition “incompetent” and bring the process to a halt. She maintained that the petition, as it stood, was defective on multiple counts, including the failure to meet the basic legal requirements for initiating a recall.
“Incompetence should have been the immediate declaration of the Commission, as the petition was evidently defective for failing to meet the procedural requirements. The Commission should not have engaged in the role of an adviser to the Petitioners, as it has done,” Akpoti-Uduaghan’s letter further stated. This line of argument highlights a key concern: the senator and her legal team believed that INEC’s actions went beyond its legal remit and were tantamount to meddling in the political process, potentially tipping the scales in favor of the petitioners.
YOU MAY READ
INEC Holds Crucial Meeting on Possible Recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
One of the most significant points raised by Akpoti-Uduaghan is the question of neutrality. The senator contended that INEC’s role, as an independent body, is to oversee the electoral process fairly and without bias. She argued that the Commission’s decision to allow the petitioners to correct their deficiencies indicated a clear partiality toward those seeking her recall, potentially undermining the integrity of the recall process itself.
The concern about impartiality is not new in Nigerian politics. Over the years, INEC has faced allegations of bias in the conduct of elections and other electoral processes, with opposition parties frequently accusing the Commission of favoring the ruling party. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s accusations reflect this broader dissatisfaction with the electoral body’s perceived lack of independence and transparency, particularly in sensitive matters such as the recall of a sitting senator.
By allowing the petitioners to amend their petition rather than dismissing it outright, INEC is accused of crossing a line between administrative oversight and active involvement in the political arena. Critics argue that this could set a dangerous precedent for future recall petitions, allowing for the manipulation of the process by interested parties with political motives.
The recall petition against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan comes in the context of a highly charged political atmosphere in Kogi State. Kogi Central has been a politically active and contested district, with various factions vying for influence. Akpoti-Uduaghan herself has been a prominent figure in the region, particularly after her election to the Senate. As a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), she has found herself at odds with rival political groups in the state, including the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which has seen a shift in its focus to the Kogi Central district as part of broader political maneuvering.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s political influence, particularly in the context of her advocacy for development and social reforms in the region, has made her both a popular and polarizing figure. For those who oppose her, the recall petition serves as an opportunity to remove a senator seen as an obstacle to their political aspirations. It is against this backdrop that accusations of bias have taken on added significance, as the recall process is inherently political and subject to manipulation by various interest groups.
The issue of political motivations in recall petitions is not unique to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case. Throughout Nigeria’s history, recall petitions have often been used as a tool for political retribution, with politicians using the process to challenge or remove opponents. This raises concerns about the potential abuse of the system and the role of INEC in ensuring that the process remains transparent and fair for all parties involved.
In response to the criticism from Akpoti-Uduaghan and her legal team, INEC has maintained that it is simply following the procedures outlined in the Electoral Act and its own guidelines. The Commission’s spokesperson, Sam Olumekun, reiterated that the petition would be processed according to the law and that any deficiencies in the petition would need to be corrected before the process could move forward.
INEC’s approach, while not uncommon in administrative processes, has raised eyebrows due to the sensitive nature of recall petitions and the timing of the petition against Akpoti-Uduaghan. By allowing the petitioners to amend their submission, INEC may have inadvertently provided the opposition with the opportunity to correct the petition in a way that could favor their cause. This has led some critics to question whether INEC is truly maintaining an impartial stance or whether it is inadvertently facilitating political maneuvering.
The electoral body’s insistence on following due process is likely to be scrutinized closely in the coming days. If the petitioners fail to meet the necessary requirements, INEC will be faced with the task of either dismissing the petition or proceeding with the verification process. The Commission’s next steps will likely determine the extent to which it is perceived as upholding its neutrality and integrity in handling the matter.
In her public statement and legal correspondence, Akpoti-Uduaghan called on INEC to restore public trust in the electoral process by acting in accordance with the law and upholding the principle of due process. She emphasized the importance of ensuring that the recall process is not only legally sound but also transparent and free from political interference.
“We still believe that the Commission will act rightly,” Akpoti-Uduaghan concluded, signaling her hope that INEC would ultimately make the right decision in line with the law and the interests of the electorate in Kogi Central.
Her call for accountability comes at a time when public confidence in Nigeria’s electoral institutions is fragile, with concerns about electoral fraud, manipulation, and bias affecting the credibility of the entire democratic process. As the recall petition moves forward, all eyes will be on INEC to see whether it can navigate the delicate balance between political pressure, legal requirements, and its duty to ensure free and fair elections.
The controversy surrounding the recall petition against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan highlights the fraught nature of Nigeria’s political landscape and the challenges faced by electoral institutions in maintaining their neutrality. While INEC has defended its decision to allow the petitioners to rectify their errors, the criticism from Akpoti-Uduaghan raises important questions about the role of the Commission in political processes and its ability to act impartially.
As the matter progresses, both the political class and the Nigerian public will be watching closely to see how INEC handles this delicate issue and whether it can restore faith in the electoral system amid growing concerns about political bias and procedural fairness. Whether or not the recall petition succeeds, the handling of this case will have far-reaching implications for the future of Nigeria’s democracy.
Source: The Trent
