The controversy between Kogi Central Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Nigeria’s Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, escalated on March 11, 2025, when she took her grievances to the United Nations Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in New York. She accused Akpabio of sexual harassment and described her six-month suspension from the Senate as unjust. This move brought the issue to the global stage, raising questions about women’s representation in Nigerian politics and the treatment of female lawmakers within the National Assembly.
The conflict began on February 20, 2025, when Akpoti-Uduaghan discovered that her nameplate had been moved from its usual spot in the Senate chamber. Convinced this was a deliberate attempt to intimidate her, she submitted a petition accusing Akpabio of orchestrating the change as part of a broader campaign of retaliation. She linked this act to an earlier sexual harassment incident she alleged occurred on December 8, 2023. However, her petition was dismissed the same day by the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges, with its chairman, Senator Neda Imasuen, stating that it was “dead on arrival” because she had signed it herself instead of allowing another senator to present it.
On March 7, 2025, the Senate imposed a six-month suspension on her, withdrawing her security and allowances. The Senate leadership defended the suspension, with Senate Majority Leader Opeyemi Bamidele citing her refusal to sit at her designated seat, speaking out of turn, and making inflammatory remarks against Senate leadership. However, Akpoti-Uduaghan maintains that the punishment was a direct response to her sexual harassment allegation against Akpabio. Before being escorted out of the Senate chamber, she vowed that “this injustice will not be sustained.”
Following her suspension, she sued Akpabio, demanding ₦100 billion in damages, but frustrated by the handling of her case in Nigeria, she took her grievances to the IPU’s Women in Parliament session in New York on March 10, 2025. She opened her statement with an emotional appeal: “I have come with a heavy heart from Nigeria…to seek help for the women of Nigeria.” Her speech suggested that her case was not just personal but part of a larger crisis regarding the suppression of women in Nigerian politics. She stated that the Senate’s response to her petition demonstrated the systemic exclusion of women from leadership positions and lamented that rather than stepping down for a fair hearing, Akpabio remained in power while she was sanctioned.
However, Her international appeal has been met with mixed reactions. Nigerian Representative to the IPU, Kafilat Ogbara, defended the Senate’s decision, reiterating that her suspension was based on misconduct, not gender discrimination. Some lawmakers, including the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Solomon Adeola, criticized her decision to escalate the issue beyond Nigeria, warning that it could embarrass the country. Akpabio himself dismissed the controversy as a “family matter” that could have been resolved internally.
Despite these criticisms, civil society organizations, women’s rights groups, and prominent figures such as Atedo Peterside have condemned the Senate’s actions. Peterside described her suspension as “disturbing” and an affront to her constituents. Chioma Agwuegbo, executive director of TechHerNG, also criticized the Ethics Committee’s handling of the case, suggesting bias in its swift dismissal of her petition. The Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), while advising Akpabio to focus on governance, also condemned her suspension.
One crucial question is: What impact can the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) have?
The IPU is not a court and cannot overturn the Nigerian Senate’s decision. However, it can increase international pressure on Nigeria if it issues a strong rebuke, amplifying global scrutiny of the country’s treatment of women in politics. The organization can also influence future legislative reforms by pushing Nigeria to establish stronger protections for female lawmakers against harassment and retaliation. Additionally, the IPU could encourage international human rights groups like Amnesty International, the Global Fund for Women, and UN Women to take up the case, potentially leading to broader advocacy and diplomatic consequences for Nigeria.
With the matter now firmly in the hands of the IPU, several possible outcomes could unfold.
If the IPU and allied international organizations find merit in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims, they could call for reforms in Nigeria’s legislative processes, particularly concerning the protection of female politicians. This could lead to increased pressure from human rights organizations and foreign governments, potentially influencing diplomatic relations or international funding.
Legally, Akpoti-Uduaghan has a strong case to challenge her suspension in court. If she secures a ruling similar to Ali Ndume v. Senate President, she could be reinstated before the six-month period elapses. A court ruling in her favor would not only be a personal victory but also a landmark case against legislative overreach.
However, even if she wins legally, Akpoti-Uduaghan could face political isolation within the Senate. Many of her colleagues—especially those who supported Akpabio—may view her international appeal as a betrayal of the chamber’s autonomy. Upon her return, she could struggle to pass bills, secure committee positions, or gain the cooperation of her peers.
Regardless of the outcome, this controversy has already ignited discussions about the systemic obstacles female politicians face in Nigeria. Akpoti-Uduaghan has cast a spotlight on the gender imbalance in the Senate (with only four female senators out of 109) and the broader culture of political exclusion. Her case could inspire more women to challenge entrenched power structures, leading to increased advocacy for gender parity in governance.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s battle against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is no longer just about an individual grievance—it has become a test case for women’s political representation, legislative fairness, and the limits of power in Nigeria’s democracy.
By taking her case to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, she has forced an international conversation about the treatment of women in Nigerian politics. Whether this move yields concrete action or merely serves as a symbolic protest remains to be seen. However, one thing is certain: this saga has reshaped the political landscape, proving that Nigerian lawmakers no matter how powerful, are no longer immune to global scrutiny.
The coming months will reveal whether Akpoti-Uduaghan’s defiance will lead to lasting reforms or whether the status quo will ultimately prevail. Either way, her decision to stand her ground has ensured that the world is watching.
