The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) has summoned Senate President Godswill Akpabio to discuss the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, but his camp has refused. Akpoti-Uduaghan, who is presently on a six-month suspension, charged Akpabio with power abuse and sexual harassment. The United Nations organisation, the IPU, heard her case but said it would not make a decision until it heard Akpabio’s side. Eseme Eyiboh, Akpabio’s media assistant, contended that the IPU lacked authority over the Nigerian Senate and that the issue was an internal parliamentary problem.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was also charged with contempt of court for continuing the IPU case in spite of purportedly obtaining a court order. Additionally, he implied that her behaviour would damage Nigeria’s standing abroad. When asked whether she might be subject to additional sanctions, Eyiboh refused to guess. On March 6, Kogi Central representative Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended following a disagreement over her Senate seat assignment. Later, she claimed that Akpabio was using her rejection of his approaches as political victimisation. She emphasised her suspension, pay cuts, and Security disengagement when calling for international intervention during an IPU meeting at the UN.
There has been a lot of discussion about the suspension of Sen. Natasha.
As a disciplinary step for her persistent misconduct, violation of Senate rules, and unruly behaviour, the Nigerian Senate disputed that her suspension was related to Sexual Harassment allegations. The Senate Leader, Senator Bamidele Opeyemi, accused the media of disseminating false information and criticised reports that said otherwise. The Senate explained that the Ethics and Privileges Committee’s report, which concluded that she disregarded committee summons, violated parliamentary procedures, and participated in disruptive behaviour, was the reason for her suspension.
Despite allegations that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s appeal against Akpabio contributed to her suspension, the Senate maintained that all senators must follow its rules. There has been a lot of discussion about the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, with legal, political, and global aspects. Several important elements are revealed by an impartial investigation of the circumstance. Established to encourage democratic governance, accountability, and collaboration among its members, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) is an international organisation made up of national parliaments. The IPU is a forum for discussion and the advancement of best practices in parliament, but it has no legal control over the internal affairs of independent legislatures.
IPU lacks authority over Nigeria’s Senate’s legislative procedures.
Its primary function is consultation; it makes suggestions rather than issuing binding orders. The IPU has previously stepped in when parliamentary integrity was in jeopardy or when members of parliament were subjected to Human Rights abuses. But its impact is restricted to moral persuasion and advocacy. The IPU lacks authority over Nigeria’s Senate’s legislative procedures and disciplinary measures due to its consultative nature. The purpose of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition to the IPU is to bring her suspension and the accusations against the Senate President to the attention of the world.
This may result in more public and diplomatic attention, but it has no legal force to change Senate decisions. In order to draw attention to possible injustices and solicit moral support from the international community, her request has symbolic legal ramifications. The materials that are now available do not provide a thorough account of the particular court order that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was able to secure. It is mentioned, meanwhile, that she has sued the Senate President, for damages of ₦100 billion, or almost $64,000.
Related Article: Political pushback or gender bias in senate?
Additionally, the outcome of this case will be crucial in deciding what she does next. If the court rules in her favour, the Senate may face more pressure from both domestic and foreign sources to remove her suspension and resolve the underlying accusations. The IPU’s participation, while not legally enforceable, might also strengthen calls for a reexamination of the Senate’s disciplinary measures. On the other hand, if the court rejects her arguments, the Senate can see it as approval of their behaviour, which might further marginalise the Senator.