In recent weeks, Nigeria’s political landscape has been shaken by a public dispute between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
WikkiTimes learned that the controversy escalated when Senator Natasha accused Akpabio of sexual harassment, leading to her subsequent suspension from the Senate.
Seeking redress, she has taken her case to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), an international organization that addresses issues concerning parliamentarians worldwide.
Speaking at the Women in Parliament session at the United Nations in New York, Natasha informed the IPU of her alleged victimisation by Akpabio, calling for the intervention of global democratic institutions.
Following her speech, she expressed concerns for her safety, claiming that some powerful individuals from Nigeria might attempt to detain her in New York for speaking out on the issue at the global event.
Background of the Rift
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, has been a prominent figure in Nigerian politics, known for her advocacy and legislative contributions.
In February 2025, she publicly accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment during an interview on Arise News. Before that, she rejected the reallocation of her seat in the Senate Chamber by the Senate President.
Akpabio, a former governor of Akwa Ibom State, denied the allegations, suggesting that they arose following changes in Natasha’s committee assignments.
WikkiTimes understands that on March 6, 2025, the Nigerian Senate suspended Natasha for six months, citing “flagrant disobedience to Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (As Amended) and her unparliamentary behaviour.”
The Senate Committee highlighted specific violations, including her refusal to sit in her assigned seat, speaking without recognition, and disruptive conduct.
The Senate leadership emphasized that the suspension was due to her conduct and not directly related to the sexual harassment allegations against Akpabio.
Understanding the IPU
The IPU, established in 1889, is a global organization of national parliaments serving as a platform for parliamentary dialogue worldwide to promote peace, democracy, and sustainable development.
The IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians is the only international complaints mechanism with the specific mandate to defend the human rights of persecuted parliamentarians around the world.
Its work includes mobilizing the international parliamentary community to support threatened members of parliament (MPs), lobbying national authorities, visiting MPs in danger and sending trial observers.
WikkiTimes found that its latest decisions were approved by the IPU’s governing bodies at the 149th IPU Assembly which took place in Geneva, Switzerland from 13-17 October 2024.
The IPU facilitates cooperation among parliaments, sets international standards, and addresses challenges faced by parliamentarians.
One of the IPU’s critical functions is its Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, which examines cases where the rights of parliamentarians are alleged to have been violated.
The committee investigates complaints, engages with the concerned parties, and seeks resolutions that uphold the rights and integrity of parliamentary institutions.
Over the years, the IPU has addressed numerous cases involving allegations of harassment, unlawful suspension, and other rights violations against parliamentarians.
For instance, in 2019, during its 140th Assembly, the IPU called for actions to defend persecuted MPs worldwide, highlighting the organization’s commitment to protecting legislators facing unjust treatment.
Similarly, in 2024 IPU decried violations including attacks on freedom of expression, suspension or loss of parliamentary mandate, threats, intimidation, torture, arbitrary arrest, and enforced disappearance against the parliamentarians.
Notable Interventions by the IPU
Although the IPU lacks prosecutorial power, its interventions have led to significant outcomes. In 2021, in Democratic Republic of Congo, opposition MP Jean Jacques Mamba was acquitted after facing arrest in 2020. His return to parliamentary duties followed persistent IPU lobbying.
Also, in Tunisia, the IPU monitored the cases of opposition MPs Seifedine Makhlouf and Nidhal Saoudi, who were detained on severe charges. Their release and the reclassification of charges followed IPU’s engagement.
Potential Outcomes at the IPU
Senator Natasha’s decision to bring her case before the IPU signifies her pursuit of international review of her allegations and subsequent suspension.
The IPU will likely assess whether the Nigerian Senate adhered to its established procedures and respected Natasha’s rights during the suspension process.
Secondly, the IPU may examine the sexual harassment claims to determine if they were adequately addressed and if the Senator faced any retaliation for raising such allegations.
It will also assess whether Senator Natasha’s rights as a parliamentarian were violated and if her suspension aligns with democratic principles.
The IPU’s findings could lead to outcomes like issuing recommendations to the Nigerian Senate to reinstate Senator Natasha if procedural flaws are identified or to address the harassment allegations more thoroughly.
It might also offer to mediate between the parties to reach an amicable resolution.
Similarly, IPU could bring international attention to the case, pressuring the Nigerian Senate to act in accordance with global democratic norms.
Implications
Taking this dispute to the IPU carries significant implications: For Senator Natasha, engaging the IPU provides her with an avenue to seek justice beyond domestic mechanisms.
A favorable outcome could vindicate her stance, restore her position in the Senate, and highlight issues of harassment within political institutions.
For Senate President Akpabio on the other hand, the international scrutiny could impact his reputation and leadership.
If the IPU finds merit in the allegations or procedural shortcomings, it may lead to calls for accountability and reforms within the Senate’s handling of such matters.
Whatsoever the outcome, the findings may not only impact the individuals involved but also set a precedent for how such disputes are managed within legislative bodies globally.
