Distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is back in the news after a six-month hiatus. The delectable beauty who represents Kogi Central in the senate was suspended for six months, in March, by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions after she refused to submit to the committee’s summons to answer allegations of breaching the privileges of her colleagues. She had refused to go to her assigned seat, before speaking, and later made disparaging statements about the senate leadership on radio and television. Arguing that the six months has elapsed, Natasha wrote to the senate clerk that she would resume plenary.
The clerk told her that she cannot resume because the dispute over her suspension is sub judice, since she took the senate to court, arguing that it lacked the power to suspend her. The Honourable Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court had held that while the senate has powers to discipline its members, six months was a long time to deny a constituency representation in the senate chambers. The court ordered the distinguished senator to apologize and pay a fine of N5million for ignoring a gag order not to discuss the matter in public while the case was in court.
Senator Natasha went on appeal against parts of the judgment since the High Court did not hold that her suspension was illegal, which is what she wanted. The defendants also cross-appealed, contending the powers of the senate to self-regulate its members. With the matter pending on appeal, the senate leadership prompted the clerk to reply Senator Natasha that parties would have to wait for the courts to determine the dispute first. The further explanation by the clerk that the decision about her return will be made by the senate leadership may not change the current position of the senate.
Of course, what they are telling Natasha is that you cannot be in court and still seek what they consider an administrative remedy. On her part, the suspended senator has vowed to resume plenary regardless of the decision of the senate and its administrative organs. This writer wonders how Natasha would carry out her threats. Would she bring in her supporters to enforce her return and keep vigil to ensure she stays and attends senate plenaries?
If she takes the matter into her hands or allow her supporters to do so, the chances are that she may again be accused of running afoul of the senate rules and the consequences could be another round of brouhaha. It is interesting that Natasha appears determined to be recalled on her own terms, that is, keeping the cases in court and refusing to apologize and return to the senate to continue her legislative duties.
That would be viewed by her supporters as giving the senate a bloody nose, and she ought to know that the leadership would not easily yield to that. If her recall is left for the courts to determine, the chances are that it may take a pretty long time to come. Even with the best effort of her lawyers, it will take some months before the Court of Appeal determines the appeal and cross-appeal, and after that, any of the party who loses may proceed to the Supreme Court for the final determination of the controversy.
Perhaps, Natasha was hoping that the controversy would bring down the senate president, Senator Godswill Akpabio, from his exalted position. If that had happened, as many of Natasha’s supporters had wished, the senator would have been recalled back to the red chamber without much ado. But so far, the senate president has survived, and with the maintenance of strong legislative collaboration with the executive arm of government, in passing critical executive bills, bringing down Akpabio, won’t be an easy task at all.
As I wrote in March, with respect to this saga, which I titled: Trial of Senator Natasha, the distinguished senator has shown herself a fearless warrior, but unfortunately tactless. The allegations of sexual harassment which she made against the senate president did not carry much hurricane, because it was in the midst of her missteps in the red chamber. Showing herself a rookie, she refused a simple senate rule that a senator can only be recognized to speak from his/her assigned seat.
Her claim in the red chambers of victimization by the senate president, while she refused the entreaties of her colleagues to move to her newly assigned seat, robbed off on her, as an indecorous person. All the complaints she made that day went to no issue, as she was not properly recognized to speak. Her rantings in front her fellow senators and the cameras, while making her notorious amongst social media netizens, gave her out as cantankerous, to the discerning public.
Again her refusal to appear before the Senate Committee on Ethics, after she was appropriately invited, robbed her of the claim of a breach of her fundamental rights. She failed to realize that snubbing that committee amounted to desecrating the integrity of the entire senate. If she was properly guided, she should have appeared to make her case, and that would give her the locus to challenge their findings. She thought that her case against senate president, equates to contention with the entire senate.
This writer does not agree with those who contend that the senate or any legislative assembly should not have the powers to discipline her members. Without such power, the senate or indeed any such legislative assembly would be a rancorous market place. If every senator should have the right to throw tantrums and engage in riotous conduct, without internal mechanism for review and punishment, the legislative assembly would be a riotous assembly. What needs to be done is to make the committee on ethics and the review process respectful and fair.
As a body, the senate or any other legislative assembly should have settled precedents or codes for members, with accompanying consequences for disobedience by members. When a member breaches a code, he/she should know the likely consequences, if found culpable by a body of colleagues entrusted with the power of review. The senate or such other legislative assembly should as a body have a way of ensuring that the committee entrusted with the responsibility to discipline members always act responsibly.
To end the present imbroglio with the senate, the Kogi senator, should seek counsel from her older colleagues. Her present counsellors are more of pubic activists, without requisite experience, on how to navigate the shark-infested legislative waters, and they have not brought her requisite remedy. Since their tactics is not working, she should try other measures, unless she does not care whether she returns to the red chambers or not, as soon as possible. At least, if not for herself, she should consider the interest of her constituency.
