Sexual Harassment: Kogi Central stakeholders threaten to recall Senator Natasha

A group of stakeholders from Kogi Central Senatorial District has warned their representatives in the 10th National Assembly, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, to concentrate on her primary assignment or risk being recalled. The group expressed deep dissatisfaction with Natasha’s conduct in her ongoing public feud with Senate President Godswill Akpabio. The lawmaker recently claimed on live television that Akpabio made several sexual advances at her, which she rejected. She claimed that her refusal to accept the Senate President’s advances was responsible for the hostile treatment she has been subjected to at the Red Chamber. All these came to light after a public spat between the Kogi lawmaker and Akpabio over the Senate seating arrangement. Displeased by the decision to swap her seat, Akpoti-Uduaghan complained about the development, resulting in a shouting match between the duo. ALSO READ: Natasha: CAN reveals stance on sexual harassment claims against Akpabio Kogi Central stakeholders threaten to recall Natasha Meanwhile, the Kogi Central Concerned Stakeholders, in a statement signed by its Convener AbdulRaheem Adeku, urged the Senate to take disciplinary action against the lawmaker, arguing that her behaviour is distracting her from her legislative duties. The group also condemned Akpoti-Uduaghan for failing to focus on her legislative mandate and engaging in actions that do not serve the common good. The stakeholders warned that a recall process would be commended against the lawmaker if she continues to ‘misuse’ her privilege of representation. “We, the Kogi Central Concerned Stakeholders, have observed with utmost dismay the ongoing dispute between Senate President Godswill Akpabio and our senator, Natasha Akpoti. We wish to firmly dissociate ourselves from these unfolding events, which have become a national concern,” the statement read. “As a revered institution of government, it is essential to acknowledge that the National Assembly has established rules that must be adhered to in order to maintain order. Regrettably, we note that what should have been a simple compliance issue has devolved into a vitriolic exchange. “It is alarming to witness the numerous allegations and counter-allegations circulating in both social and conventional media since the sexual harassment allegation against the Senate President, subjecting the peaceful people of Kogi Central to unwarranted public scrutiny. “We urge Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to recognise her position as an equal among her peers in the red chamber, to act as a distinguished member, and to concentrate on the mandate entrusted to her by her constituents. She must refrain from distracting others with events that yield no common good. “This behaviour is not in line with our character; thus, we, the Kogi Central Concerned Stakeholders, may be compelled to initiate the recall process if the current public abuse of her privilege of representation continues. ALSO READ: Senator Natasha once falsely accused me of sexual harassment – Reno Omokri “We call upon the Senate to undertake the necessary disciplinary measures to serve as a deterrent to other serving senators.” Senate dismisses Natasha’s petition against Akpabio On Wednesday, March 5, 205, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions dismissed Akpoti-Uduaghan’s sexual harassment and abuse of office petition against Akpabio. This was after lawmakers, including Senate Chief Whip Mohammed Tahir Monguno and Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele, had questioned the petition’s validity. The committee threw out the Kogi lawmaker’s petition and declared it “dead on arrival,” citing procedural violations and legal constraints. During the probe session, Committee Chairman, Senator Neda Imasuen, cited Order 40 of the Senate Standing Orders, explaining that Akpoti-Uduaghan signed the petition herself rather than having it endorsed by another person, thereby rendering it procedurally invalid. Senator Imasuen added that the matters raised in the petition were already before the court, making them sub judice and beyond the Senate’s jurisdiction.