Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Beyond The Surface: The Need For Objectivity In The Senate Controversy -By John Oyebanji

Focusing solely on “what” happened while ignoring “how” and “why” it happened introduces a dangerous bias. Objective analysis requires an examination of both cause and effect, rather than a myopic fixation on outcomes alone.

I fully acknowledge that Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduguhan flouted the rules and should face the corresponding consequences. However, before rushing to judgment, we must consider the possibility that her outburst – immediately following the forced change of her seat – was a reaction to something deeper. Could it have been the tipping point of accumulated grievances she had silently endured? Do we, as a society, have the moral authority to dictate exactly how someone should react when they can no longer suppress their frustrations?

If precedent matters, then let’s revisit a similar case. The current Senate President himself once flouted the same rule, disrupting proceedings for a longer duration. However, at that time, the sitting Senate President chose wisdom over force, allowing him to air his grievances before suggesting an apology – which he accepted. Life went on.

Now, contrast that with how the woman senator was treated. Instead of being afforded the same deliberation and space to explain herself, the Senate President immediately ordered her to be marshaled out. Was she given the same opportunity that Senator Akpabio had? No. In fact, the Senate President almost single-handedly pushed for her suspension until she invoked her privileges.

Following this, she granted an interview, stating her reasons – from her perspective – for why the Senate President had silenced her. From this, the sexual harassment allegation emerged. Many quickly dismissed it as a mere weaponization of gender narratives, but should we not at least consider the possibility that this was, in her view, a cause of her ordeal? Is she telling the truth? I don’t know.

So, how do we arrive at the truth without falling into dangerous biases? By studying the causes and effects.

Yes, she broke a rule. However, the Senate, in a near cult-like display of solidarity with the SP, was eager to hand down a swift and disproportionate punishment – turning a minor infraction into an unnecessary crisis. There was no investigation into her concerns. Worse still, the leader of the Ethics, Privileges, and Public Conduct Committee rushed to the media to preemptively exonerate the SP, declaring that her petitions would not even be considered. Is that not an outright power play?

Even more telling is the fact that the committee could not even secure an outright two-thirds majority to sign off on the recommendation against her. Yet, senators – again in cult-like fashion – mindlessly chanted “aye” to push it through.

Now, there is a concerted effort to reframe the narrative with the claim that, “She was not suspended for the sexual harassment allegation but for disregarding a Senate rule.”

Yet, in its attempt to protect itself, the Senate has only further embarrassed itself – exposing a deep-seated culture of selective justice and unrestrained power dynamics.