Senate Vs Akpoti-Uduaghan: A Case of ‘Two Fighting’
The Advocate By Onikepo Braithwaite Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com
Background
I had decided that I wouldn’t spend any more time on the ongoing saga between SP Akpabio, the Senate and Senator Natasha Akpoti, because like Senator Shehu Sani pointed out in an interview last week on Channels TV’s Politics Today, and another Senator from Osun State also stated on the floor of the Senate Chamber, the disagreement is not about nation building, the living conditions of Nigerians, lawmaking or constitutional functions of the Senate, but, rather, it’s about an issue triggered by the sitting arrangement in the Senate Chamber, culminating in an allegation of sexual harassment against SP Akpabio by Senator Akpoti, and an unlawful suspension as a result of alleged misconduct by Senator Akpoti on the Senate floor. See Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly v Rifikatu Samson Danna (2017) 49 W.R.N. (CA) and Sections 14(2)(c) & 42(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) on the issue of suspension from the Senate. Last week, I exhausted myself on why Senator Akpoti’s suspension is unconstitutional, and supported this position with case law. There’s no need to repeat it. However, I must restate the fact that I am a woman, and I have zero tolerance for sexual harassment, be it men against women, vice versa (or same sex).
Deeper Matters Arising
But, on the surface, though it looks like ’two fighting’ or bickering between two Senators, it goes beyond that. For starters, it highlights the drastic decline in many Nigerian institutions, weakening as the years go by, many falling to an all time low, and others qualifying as weak institutions, because unfortunately, they are populated by those who lack capacity, and their output isn’t based upon proper structures that should have been put in place for their optimal performance.
1) Whether the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (SSO) permits suspension or not, the SSO inferior to the Constitution. See the case of Saraki v FRN (2016) LPELR-40013(SC) per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC (later CJN). And, to the extent that such suspension is unconstitutional, it shows a lack of respect for the grundnorm and the rule of law on the part of the Senate; for the highest lawmaking body in the land to go ahead to proclaim their disregard to the world with such gusto and aplomb (relish too). How unfortunate!
Two wrongs, certainly do not make a right. The fact that Senator Akpoti may have breached the rules of the Senate, doesn’t allow the Senate to mete out to her, a punishment that is unlawful. It is worse that members of the leadership of the Senate, are qualified Lawyers. This does not augur well for our democracy, and the optics are awful. I found it both troubling and appalling that, after much ado, at a plenary session, the Senators would still pass a voice resolution upholding the suspension of Senator Akpoti for six months unless she submits a written apology to the Senate, when her suspension is clearly unlawful.
The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution contains, inter alia, the Oath of a Member of the National Assembly, which includes performing their functions in accordance to the Constitution, as well as preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution. Breaching the provisions of the Constitution amounts to contravening their oath of office, and is contrary to Paragraph 9 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, and such erring Public Officer (see also Paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution Paragraph 3 Part II Public Officers for the Purposes of the Code of Conduct) can be reported to the Code of Conduct Bureau where they can face the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), at which, if they are found guilty, can mete out various sanctions, including vacation of office or seat in any legislative house (see Fifth Schedule to the Constitution Code of Conduct Tribunal Paragraph 18, particularly 18(2)(a)). Of course, such decision of the CCT can lie on appeal to the Court of Appeal. All the bickering Senators should bear this in mind, and know their limits.
2) Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution allows all matters pertaining to the determination of the civil rights and obligations of a person, to be determined by the court. The only matters that aren’t justiciable are those excepted by Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution, that is, those pertaining to the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. While it is understandable that issues concerning the day to day functioning of Legislature may not be those that should be adjudicated upon, it goes without saying that if someone’s fundamental rights are breached on the floor of any Legislature, it falls within the Section 6(6)(b) matters. If someone was murdered in a fight between two Senators during the course of the proceedings of the House, would they not be arrested? Senator Akpoti would be well within her rights to go to court to pray the court that for one, her fundamental right to fair hearing may likely to be breached by the Senate Committee on Ethics – Sections 36(1) & 46(1) of the Constitution allow her to do so. This is not the same as, interfering in the normal day to day functioning of the Senate. Be that as it may, it is trite that the Senate should have obeyed the court order, as a court order is valid and binding until it is set aside. See the case of Kubor & Anor v Dickson & Ors (2012) LPELR-9817(SC) per Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, JSC.
The other side of the argument is that the SSO provides that any matter that has judicial remedy cannot be brought by way of petition to the Senate. Sexual harassment is a criminal offence with judicial remedy. I am therefore surprised that even at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), Senator Akpoti, a Lawyer who should be conversant with the SSO, is still talking about re-presenting her sexual harassment petition to the Senate Committee. If she has a case, by now, she should have reported the matter to the Police, so that it can be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and prosecuted. After all, unlike the Executive, SP Akpabio doesn’t enjoy the Section 308 immunity from suit and legal process while in office. I also read the IPU’s Complaint Form, and Question 18 thereof also asks if the Complainant has reported the complaint to the appropriate authorities, and if not, requests for an explanation for not doing so. Why hasn’t Senator Akpoti taken the proper steps, regarding her sexual harassment allegation?
It is quite embarrassing and shameful, that members of the highest legislative body in the land, are not conversant with the Constitution, the laws they enact or even their own Rules.
3) Senator Akpoti’s allegations of sexual harassment against SP Akpabio, are entirely different from any alleged misconduct by her in the chamber of the Senate. Sexual harassment is a malaise which happens all over the world, including Nigeria. It is a serious matter that must not be taken lightly, particularly because of the many who are subjected to this degrading treatment. See Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution.
A case in view is that of the Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs who appears to have been notorious for allegedly sexually harassing women, even to the extent of taking it beyond the shores of Nigeria. It is reported that he was about to be declared as ‘persona non grata’, in Canada, which in diplomatic terms, means someone who is no longer welcome in a place, before he was brought back to Nigeria. There is an allegation against him in Senegal, that he threatened a female Bank Official who was able to expose him by substantiating her allegations against him, because she had a recording of the incident. Several other ladies have come out with the same sexual harassment allegations against the Permanent Secretary, including an aide to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The recording of him in Senegal is certainly strong prima facie evidence against the Permanent Secretary, that he is quite capable of sexual harassment.
4) IPU
Senator Akpoti took her matter to the IPU, which doesn’t appear to have any punitive powers, even though one of its functions is to defend the fundamental rights of Parliamentarians of member countries. There are several issues of fundamental rights in this circumstance – the unconstitutional suspension of Senator Akpoti, her allegation of sexual harassment against SP Akpabio, the right to fair hearing for both of them, SP Akpabio’s right to respect and dignity, particularly if the allegations against him are unsubstantiated. See the case of NDPHC Ltd v Michael (2024) LPELR-79937(SC) per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC.
In her submission to the IPU, Senator Akpoti talked about the malaise of sexual harassment in the political space and educational institutions in Nigeria, and the fact that there are so few women in the Senate – these are cogent issues. She however, omitted to mention the issue of her misconduct on the floor of the Senate, and attributed her unlawful suspension from the Senate, solely to the fact that it was because she made sexual harassment allegations against SP Akpabio. This is not true. We cannot ignore the fact that Senator Akpoti appeared to have breached the SSO in full public glare, and that even if there may be more to it than meets the eye as she claims, that’s the reason the Senate gave for the unlawful suspension. If we are to be fair, we cannot discountenance what most Nigerians who watch television, saw transpire on the floor of the Senate on February 20, 2025 – Senator Akpoti failed to take her assigned seat; she insisted on being recognised standing; she disobeyed the Senate President, whose word is final; she spoke in loud tones – in short, she didn’t exactly portray the decorum that is required by the Behaviour of Senators of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the SSO, whatever may have been the provocation. While courtesy may demand that a Senator be informed prior to their seat being changed, it may not be mandatory that a Senator must be informed before such action is taken.
Weeks after Senator Akpoti made such a weighty allegation against SP Akpabio, she still didn’t seize the opportunity on the global IPU platform to buttress her sexual allegation claims with any evidence, and many are wondering why. Or maybe the proof is included in Question 18 of the IPU Form, which requests for detailed information of the alleged human rights violation. Question 7 asks that if the rights violation complained of is by a female Parliamentarian, whether the violations are gender based, directed against women. Senator Akpoti appears to be the first female Senator to be suspended, during the subsistence of the Fourth Republic, even though there have been other female Senators since 1999. Those who have been suspended are all men – Senators Nzeribe, Ali Ndume, Omo Agege, Abdul Ningi, Joseph Waku and Femi Okurounmu; so one cannot safely conclude that Senator Akpoti’s suspension is gender related.
Conclusion
We see evidence of wrongdoing, on the parts of both the Senate and Senator Akpoti. It is disgraceful. It would have been desirable for Senator Akpoti to reveal at least one piece of evidence she has against SP Akpabio, particularly as she has gone global with her allegations of sexual harassment. For the multitude of women (and men) who have had to pass through this horrible malaise of sexual harassment, it could be unfair to belittle their terrible experiences by crying wolf without showing there is a wolf. It is puzzling that for someone who is vocal, and one who is seen to fight boldly for her rights, she didn’t reveal that information at the earliest opportunity, let alone on the IPU platform. Going forward, women mustn’t make it more difficult for women who have these complaints, to be believed.
As Lawyers, that is, Senators Akpabio, Akpoti and I, we are well aware that it is trite that, ‘he who alleges must prove’. And, while I do not expect Senator Akpoti to provide proof beyond every shadow of doubt (see Stephen v State (2013) LPELR-20178(SC) per John Afolabi Fabiyi, JSC), any reasonable person, by now, expects to see some proof (also see the American case of Anita Hill v Justice Clarence Thomas (1991)). Senator Akpoti’s submission to the IPU omitting material facts about her behaviour in the Senate Chamber, is being economical with the truth, and may be perceived as trying to make herself appear to be totally blameless in order to further her cause. But, like I said last week, her punishment for alleged misconduct on the Senate floor, shouldn’t have been more than sending her home for the rest of the legislative day.
For those who say that SP Akpabio has been rather silent about the allegations levelled against him, the burden of proof initially lies on Senator Akpoti who has alleged the sexual misconduct, and only after that is discharged does it shift to SP Akpabio to disprove the allegation.
Lastly, the Senate has portrayed Nigeria to the world, as being an unserious country! We have been plagued with insurgency, insecurity poverty, possibly the highest number of out-of-school children in the world and economic crises, and instead of concentrating on these crucial issues, we prefer to spend our time taking the ‘two fighting’
global!
