“Regarding the nightclub incident, I believe that was not a slip of the tongue. He had told me that there are a number of ways we can have fun if we travel.” These were parts of the revelation made today, February 28, by the embattled Senator representing Kogi State Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Udusghan while answering questions at the Arise Television. Senator Natasha said that her trouble with the Senate President started on the 18th of December 2023, which was a day before his birthday and her birthday. “We are birthday mates. We were all in Akwa Ibom because he had a big fanfare in the stadium. “Myself, my husband and a few of his close friends, we went to Akwa Ibom and at first we were at Ikot Ekpene, where his house is, then we all moved to his house in Uyo. It was about 8pm and he held my hand and said he wanted to show me around his house. “My husband was walking behind us. Just three of us. We were walking around from room to room. He showed me the beautiful interior. “He noticed that he has to be spaced while still holding my hand. My husband was behind still on his phone, but he was watching up whenever he could and then he got to this particular sitting room and he said, do you like my house? “I said, of course, sir. Every room, beautiful, nice interior, quality taste. He said, now that you’re a senator, I’m going to create time for us to come spend quality moments here. “You will enjoy it. “At that point, I just pulled away and I was like, ‘I don’t really understand what exactly that meant.’ But then my husband when I turned around was already near me, and the way my husband looked at me and looked at him, I was beginning to wonder, did he hear part of that inciting statements or not? “And then the Senate President too, I saw that he also had that thought like, did my husband hear the invitation to treat or not? “So then the Senate President now said, oh, by the way, let me show you my chapel. He has a chapel in his house as well. “So to the chapel. I know we walked in silence and all. So that evening before we left the Senate President’s house at about 11 midnight to the Four Point Hotel, my husband asked me, Natasha, what did the Senate President tell you. What was he telling you? “I thought, should I tell him that he was speaking about bringing me in here at a special time for us to have a good time? Or should I just kill it there? “I just gave him some words to mask what was said. After when we laid in bed to my right and my husband wrapped his hands around me and he said, my love you know you can tell me anything. “What did the Senate President tell you? Again I was like don’t you believe me? “I said nothing, nothing. Moreover it’s my birthday in a few minutes, let’s just be happy.” Asked why other female senators have not publicly supported her, especially at the crucial hours during which she rose against the Senate President on the floor of the Senate, Natasha said that they had their own reasons for staying silent. She confirmed that Senator Ireti Kingibe, who represents the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), had privately called her, not to offer support, but to criticize her for filing a defamation lawsuit against the Senate President, Akpabio. On the controversy surrounding her sitting arrangement in the chamber, Natasha confirmed that Order 10 of the Senate Rules states that senators must speak from their assigned seats. She argued however that when it comes to issues of privilege, lawmakers are allowed to speak from anywhere in the chamber.
The immediate past President of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari has returned to his Kaduna residence after spending two years in Daura, Katsina State. He had stayed in his Daura residence since leaving office in May 2023. In a post on his Facebook page, Bashir Ahmad, one of the Buhari’s media aide said that the former President had opted for a quiet life in his hometown and largely stayed out of active political discussions, focusing on private engagements. “Ex President Buhari was accompanied by Vice President Kashim Shettima and high-profile dignitaries, including the Governor of Borno State, Professor Babagana Umara Zulum and his counterpart, the Governor of Kaduna state, Uba Sani. Others are the current and former Deputy Governors of Katsina State, a former Inspector General of Police, former ministers, and several of his personal aides. “In Kaduna, the former president was met with a warm reception from well-wishers, who were also received by Mallam Mamman Daura and Musa Halilu (Dujiman Adamawa) who gathered to welcome him back.
Ann Moses Bello, daughter of the late Justice Moses Bello, former President of the Abuja Customary Court of Appeal, has demanded DNA tests on all of her and sisters within the next 14-days. Report has it that Ann had already sent an official notice to Rev. Father Awolumate, demanding DNA tests for Joseph Asuku Bello and six others. According to her, paragraph 5 (a) (i) of her father’s Will makes the DNA test a condition for inheritance of his properties, warning that if they fail to comply, they must forfeit all assigned money, properties, and assets. Her legal counsel also warned that any attempt to sell or transfer Justice Bello’s assets would be opposed. He added that failure to comply with the DNA test requirement could lead to criminal charges against the executors and affected parties. With this 14-day ultimatum, pressure is now on the executors to act swiftly or face legal consequences. Ann’s demand for DNA test is believed to have emanated from a recent ruling by Justice Mohammed Zubairu of the FCT High Court in Kurudu. The court declared that a codicil (a document meant to modify a will) attached to Justice Bello’s will was invalid, meaning that only the original will remains legally binding. Before the ruling, Ann had challenged the executors of the will in court, claiming that she was being denied her rightful inheritance. She filed a lawsuit (suit number CV/667/2024) against Reverend Father Ezekiel Awolumate and Christ the King Catholic Church, Okene Parish. In her suit, she said that she was given only 4.16% of her father’s estate instead of the 11.11% stated in the original will. Ann also requested that the executors of the will be removed, accusing them of failing to distribute the estate according to her father’s instructions. However, the court ruled against Ann’s claim that the codicil was valid, stating that it was more of a private letter to the late judge’s solicitor and did not meet legal requirements, such as having witness signatures.
Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals has again, slashed the price of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) or petrol, for the second time this month, this time to N825 per litre at the gantry (ex-depot). Report reaching us at Greenbarge Reporters online newspaper said that the price reduction represents a reduction of N125 per litre within 26 days. It said that the price reduction will ensure that Nigerians pay between N860 and N865 per litre for petrol at the pump in Lagos. A statement from the company announced that the price adjustment will take effect from tomorrow, February 27, and is intended to provide essential relief to Nigerians. “This strategic price adjustment is designed to provide essential relief to Nigerians in celebration of the Ramadan season, while also supporting President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s economic recovery policy by alleviating the financial burden on the Nigerian populace. “It is important to note that Dangote Petroleum Refinery has consistently lowered the prices of petrol and other refined petroleum products to the benefit of Nigerians. This marks the second reduction of PMS prices in February 2025, following a previous decrease of N60 earlier in the month. Additionally, in December 2024, during the yuletide period, the refinery reduced the price of PMS by N70.50, from N970 to N899.50 per litre, as part of its commitment to easing the cost of living and providing relief to Nigerians during the holiday season,” the statement read. The refinery said that previous reductions have positively impacted the overall cost of living, benefiting various sectors of the economy. It said that such reductions have helped to ensure that Nigerians did not experience the typical fuel scarcity and price hikes associated with the yuletide season. Dangote reiterated that its high-quality products, which have become a favourite in both domestic and international markets, will remain available nationwide, particularly through its key partners—MRS Holdings, AP (Ardova Petroleum), and Heyden—at market-friendly rates. “Nigerians will be able to purchase high-quality Dangote petrol at the following prices across our partners’ retail outlets: For MRS Holdings stations, it will be sold for N860 per litre in Lagos, N870 per litre in the South-West, N880 per litre in the North, and N890 per litre in the South-South and South-East regions, respectively. “The same product will also be available at the following prices in AP (Ardova Petroleum) and Heyden stations: N865 per litre in Lagos, N875 per litre in the South-West, N885 per litre in the North, and N895 per litre in the South-South and South-East.” Dangote Petroleum Refinery assured the public of a consistent supply of petroleum products, with sufficient reserves to meet domestic demand and a surplus for export, thereby boosting the country’s foreign exchange earnings. The refinery called on marketers to support this initiative, ensuring that Nigerians remain the primary beneficiaries of this effort. “This collective action will contribute to the broader economic recovery plan led by His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who is committed to making Nigeria self-sufficient in refined petroleum products and positioning the country as a leading oil export hub.”
President of the Nigerian Senate, Godswill Akpabio has blamed the furore generated by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi State Central Senatorial District on what he called “lack of orientation.” Senator Akpabio, who referred Natasha’s case to the Senate’s Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petition, therefore, ordered the National Assembly management to immediately commence periodic orientation training for senators, especially the midstream Senators. The Senate President said that Senator Natasha wanted to speak at the session of the senate the very first day she took her seat and was allowed to speak against the rule just to make her happy. “Even the first time our distinguished sister came in, she was not even speaking from her seat and that’s when we tried to call her to order. “I think what happen is that when they (new senators) came in, they missed orientation, especially those who came midstream.” Senator Akpabio stressed that on the very day Natasha was sworn-in, she raised her hand to speak. “I was scared, but I had to recognise her because we just gave her the rule book. Part of what we gave in that book is the Standing Order of the senate. She had not even opened the book to know what to say. “She made contribution that day and two days later, she brought a motion.” The Senate President admitted that there’s nothing wrong in being vibrant as Senator Natasha wanted to show but that everything is wrong “if you don’t know about the procedures.”
Embattled Senator representing Kogi State Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has dragged the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio before a Federal Capital Territory High Court, demanding N100.3 billion as damages over alleged defamation. In the suit filed today, February 25, Natasha joined the President of the Senate, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Senior Legislative Aide to the Senate President, Mfon Patrick, as first, second and third defendants respectively. In the suit, marked CV/737/25, Natasha, through her lawyer, Victor Giwa, alleged that defamatory statements were made by the Senate President and published by his aide on Facebook. According to the suit, the post, titled: “Is the Local Content Committee of the Senate Natasha’s Birthright?” included a statement suggesting that Natasha believed being a lawmaker was only about “pancaking her face and wearing transparent outfits to the chambers. The suit said that the statement was defamatory, provocative, and disparaging, lowering Natasha’s dignity in the eyes of her colleagues and the public. It wants “A DECLARATION that the words, ‘It is bottled anger by the Kogi lawmaker, who knows nothing about legislative rules. She thinks being a lawmaker is all about pancaking her face and wearing transparent outfits to the chambers,’ used and written by the third defendant at the prompting of the first and second defendants, is defamatory and intended to cause public opprobrium and disaffection toward the claimant.” The suit urged the court to restrain the defendants and their associates from making further defamatory statements against her on any platform. “AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the defendants, whether acting by themselves or through their agents, privies, assigns, or associates, from further publishing or causing to be published the said defamatory words or any similar publications about the claimant on social media or in any other manner capable of defaming her.” Natasha further asked the court to order the defendants to pay her N100 billion in general damages and N300 million as litigation costs. “An order for the payment of the sum of N100,000,000,000 as general damages. An order for the payment of the sum of N300,000,000 as the cost of action.”
A drama on the floor of the Senate on Thursday, 20th February 2025, attracted varied commentaries on the social, print and broadcast media. The drama was both unnecessary and avoidable as it merely distracted from the business of the day in the Chamber. Legislative activities, whether in the hallowed Chamber or in committee rooms, are guided by the Senate Rules. This may lead a first-timer at the public gallery to wonder if lawmakers do anything without reference to their Standing Rules. Every time they get the recognition of the Presiding Officer to contribute to a discussion in the chamber, Senators are guided by the Standing Rules in what to say. This is well known to the lawmakers. The Rules also stipulate sanctions for members whose actions or conducts deviate from the Rules. The Chamber is called hallowed because it is known for Order and decorum. The drama of that Thursday started right at the commencement of the day’s business when the Senate Chief Whip, Senator Mohammed Tahir Monguno, raised a Point of Order to report Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, to the Senate on her disregard for the Senate Rules. Order 6, which Senator Monguno cited, stipulates that “the President of the Senate shall allocate a seat to each senator,” while section 6(2) states that senators may only speak from the seat allocated to them by the Presiding Officer. It also provides that the President of the Senate may change the allocation from time to time as the need arises. Senator Monguno, relying on the rules stated above, submitted that “It is at the discretion of the Senate president, as circumstances may warrant, to change the seat of any Senator, based on circumstances that may crop up in the course of proceedings in the Senate. “In the course of proceedings, two Senators – Ned Nwoko of the PDP and Senator Francis Ezenwa of the Labour Party, decamped to the APC, thereby necessitating their movement from the other side (Minority) to this side (Majority). In the exercise of the powers conferred on the President of the Senate, pursuant to Order 6(2), the President of the Senate decided to rearrange things, giving a directive to the Chief Whip to exercise that function. And pursuant to that directive, seats were reallocated and I want to report that Senator Natasha, having been given another seat, refused to vacate her former seat in flagrant violation of our Rules.” Senator Monguno consequently referred the Senate to the Standing Rules, which mandate Senator Natasha to comply with the directive of the Presiding Officer to move to her new seat, failure of which she would be denied recognition to make any contribution during plenary. After the Chief Whip landed on his Point of Order, the Senate President hit the gavel and pronounced that the Point of Order was sustained. This means that Senator Natasha could not speak on the floor of the Senate except from the new seat allocated to her. Upon the Senate President’s ruling on the Point of Order, Senator Natasha sprang to her feet, waving the same document containing the Standing Rules and shouting, “Point of Order.” However, the Senate President reminded her that she could not speak outside her allocated seat. Senator Natasha ignored the Presiding Officer’s ruling and continued to scream, citing Order 10, which has to do with the breach of privileges of a Senator. Because she continued to scream, the Senate President ordered the Seargent-At-Arms to “take her out of the Chamber.” The Seargent-At-Arms moved swiftly in her direction but hesitated to act, probably expecting the Senator to calm down and comply with the Senate President’s ruling and avert her evacuation from the Chamber. However, the Senate President kept a dignified silence. He did not repeat his directive, obviously to avert aggravating the drama. By this time, some Senators had walked over to pet Senator Natasha, but she rebuffed their intervention and continued uttering discourteous statements. Against the backdrop of the unfortunate drama, commentators have raised some questions: Why should the Senate President reallocate Senators’ seats? Why can’t Senators speak from any seat in the Chamber? Why wasn’t Senator Natasha allowed to explain her objection to her seat being changed? A reference was also made to an incident on 17th October 2018 when Senator Godswill Akpabio protested being denied recognition to speak from a seat other than the one allocated to him. Are the two incidents similar? The answers to the questions above are provided by the Senate Rules and Procedure. The Standing Orders book guides the Senate’s legislative business. Pertinent to this issue, are clauses that empower the Senate President to allocate and reallocate seats as the need arises. Seats change in the Chamber from time to time without senators protesting because they know that occasions demand it and their rules permit it. Senators do not sit just anywhere at the plenary. This is to ensure Order and decorum in the hallowed Chamber. The practice in the Parliament all over the democratic world is that members sit with their party colleagues. Ruling party or majority party members have a section in the Chamber and those of the opposition or minority parties another section. A movement of members across party lines through defection will automatically necessitate an adjustment of the sitting arrangement. Therefore, as explained by the Senate Chief Whip on Thursday, the change of Senator Natasha’s seat was made necessary by the defection on Wednesday 5th February 2025 of Senator Ned Nwoko of the Delta North Senatorial District from the PDP to the APC and Senator Ezenwa Francis Onyewuchi of the Imo East Senatorial District from Labour Party to APC as well. Therefore, Senator Natasha was not the only Senator affected by the changes in the sitting arrangement. The difference with the others was that they graciously accepted the change, obviously seeing no point in making a drama out of an innocuous, routine development in the hallowed Chamber. Was Senator Natasha denied her right to speak in the Chamber that day? Nope. She was not recognised to speak because she was not on her seat, just like Senator Akpabio was not allowed to speak from Senator Ali Ndume’s seat in 2018, even though Akpabio moved over to another seat that day because the microphone on his allocated seat had malfunctioned. The then Senate President, Bukola Saraki was firm in his ruling that Akpabio would only be allowed to speak from an alternative seat (with a functioning microphone), which the Clerk of the Senate already provided him, but which he had rejected. Akpabio protested, but he eventually accepted the reallocated seat and apologized to the Senate. That shows that Akpabio did not invent the rule that prevented Senator Natasha from speaking outside the seat allocated to her. He also did not apply the Rules to embarrass or victimize her. Granting her recognition to speak after a Point of Order was raised by the Chief Whip and sustained would have been inconsistent with the Senate Rule. All that Senator Natasha was asked to do was to move to her seat to state her case of the alleged breach of her privilege. It is noteworthy that neither of her two Senator colleagues from Kogi State agreed with Natasha on this issue. Senator Jibrin Isah, representing Kogi East, apologized on behalf of the Kogi Senate Caucus to the Senate while Senator Sunday Karimi, representing Kogi West, asked Natasha to apologise to the Senate for her conduct. To demonstrate that he had no personal issues with her, the Senate President eventually offered an apology to the Senate on her behalf for holding up the day’s proceeding, citing his own 2018 experience of how a firm application of the Rules can hurt some egos and be misinterpreted.
The dust that has been raised, especially in social media platforms over the altercation between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio on one hand and between Natasha and the Senate as a body on the other, looks more of a comic drama than legislative realities. Without belabouring the issue, the bone of contention is basically the allocation or was it reallocation of seats inside the Senate Chamber, which affected Senator Natasha. This much she narrated in several fora. It has been confirmed that that was not the first time senators were being moved from their seats to others under order 6 of the Senate rules. Names of many senators, both present and in the past have been mentioned on the list of such senators that have been so moved, including of course, the present senate President, Akpabio. Indeed, the argument here is not how Akpabio reacted to the matter during his time, but whether such reaction is within the ambit of the legislative realities. In other words, such irrational and self-centred action or reaction is wrong, irrespective of who was involved and or how many people were involved. It even looks funny and curious that Natasha, who was not the only senator affected by such seat reallocation, said that her grouse was that the seat reallocated to her was in the obscure conner of the Chamber (not anywhere outside it). It beats imagination that Natasha raised her voice inside the Senate merely because her new seat is where camera would not be able to capture her and, probably, where she would not be seen by the Senate President whenever she raises her hand to want to contribute to debates. It is ridiculous to infer that there’s a place within the confines of the Chamber where Senators would not be seen or captured. Be that as it may, though Natasha wanted to and insisted that she should be allowed to react to the seat reallocated under order 10 of the Senate rule, but raising her voice in the Chamber should not have been the better option to make a point. Like it was observed, it doesn’t make legislative sense to attack the presiding officer openly simply to attract public sympathy, doing so on the basis of the fact, willy nilly, that someone did the same thing before or that one’s will must subsist to avoid heaven from falling. The ideal situation, in a civilized legislative practice would have been for Senator Natasha to take her new seat quietly, and then take her time to go on to lobby. She could approach the senate President in his office, and other leadership to show her displeasure in a more diplomatic and mature manner. She could, through such lobbying with maturity and calm mien, get exactly what she wanted, and even made more friends and acceptability. As a matter of fact, what Natasha may not know is that, first and foremost, she’s in opposition or minority in the Red Chamber and, whether she likes or not, the majority, through the leadership, would naturally want to suppress the opposition groups, irrespective of gender. Floating the idea that she’s being treated badly because she’s a woman is to cheapen the legislative realities thereby raising unnecessary sentiment. It is on record that the same senate President, Akpabio used to favour her in many legislative ways far from the point of being in minority, against the run of what could be a growing anger among the majority (All Progressives Congress APC Senators), who could possibly be reading meanings to such favours. There is therefore no “legislative evidence” to show that the other side of Akpabio towards her (if there’s something like that) is a personal hatred or a means of silencing her: it could be a means to remind her that she has to work hard to earn whatever she wants to earn in the Senate, especially respect, recognition and so on. What actually happened? That the Senate Chief Whip, relying on order 6 of the Senate rule, and on behalf of the Senate President, reallocated seats to some senators including Senator Natasha, due to certain prevailing exigencies? And while other senators who were so affected quietly moved to their new seats, Natasha would not take her own but against the rules, wanted to speak under order 10 from the seat that, at that point, was no longer her own: that as at point, she could only be allowed to raise whatever objection or observation she wanted to make from the seat to which she was relocated. Did she expect the Senate President to violate the Senate rules by allowing her to address the Senate (no matter how cogent the point she wanted to raise under order 10)? Or that the Senate President should reverse only her reallocated seat when others have relocated to their new seats? It is quite clear that if the Senate President had allowed her to address the senate from her seat from where she had just been relocated to another seat and or even reversed only her own seating arrangement when others have relocated to their new seats, eyebrows would have been raised from many quarters as to what was between the senate President and Senator Natasha. As a matter of fact, I’m sure senator Natasha would not find it funny if the consequences of such Senate President’s action (of acceding to her demand) is recorded and played back for her to see. As a matter of fact, seeing fellow senators as “enemies” much more, the Senate President, is a complete aberration in a democratic setting and in the context of legislation. In an ideal legislative setting, there can be no enemies or adversaries, but simply “opposition” or “horsetrading’ from where lobby is a natural resort. It is important to stress the point that the ideal legislative interactions between senators and senate leadership in Nigeria should be characterized by respect and transparency. Senators and senate leadership should work together to introduce, debate, and pass legislation that benefits the country. This involves active listening, open communication and a willingness to compromise. Senators should maintain a respectful tone when engaging with each other and with senate leadership, even when disagreeing. This would foster a positive and productive legislative environment. Senate leadership should, on the other hand, ensure that decision-making processes are transparent, with clear explanations for decisions and actions. This would help build trust among senators and the public. Senators should participate in debates, ask informed questions, and provide thoughtful contributions to shape legislation and they should seek clarification from senate leadership on legislative procedures, rules, and decisions in decent, respectful and responsible manner. All these things point to the fact that even as human beings, we are learning everyday, either from others or from our mistakes. What differentiates the wise from the foolish ones amongst us, human, is the use to which we put such learning and even, the refusal or failure to turn such learning process into something else, just so as to elicit unnecessary furore and sympathy. The learning and accommodation of the tumbles and tribulations is pronounced more in political turfs. Natasha and Akpabio are therefore, in this learning context, not enemies per se. The earlier they realise that fact and face the legislative realities the better for them, their individual constituency and the country.
An Osogbo based pro-democracy group, Osun Democrats for Democracy (ODD) has praised the Director General of the Department of State Service (DSS), Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi and the Service’s operatives in Osun state for their display of professionalism, maturity and commitment to rule of law in the recent local government crisis in the state. The group, in a statement today, February 23, in Osogbo, commended the exemplary display of due process and best practices by Ajayi since he took over the leadership of the service “We are really impressed that a thorough reform of the operational approach of the DSS has impacted positively on maintenance of security in Nigeria and Osun state in particular. “We had a meeting to review the recent local government crisis and we decided to tell Mr Ajayi that the nation is grateful for his intense efforts to return the service to its core values as the eagle eye of the nation. We resolve to inform the DG that his reforms are bearing positive fruits. “We are aware of his antecedents as a public spirited officer who ensure staff welfare, teamwork and fairness in management. We read of his records in all state commands where he had served , how he impacted on his place of postings and how personnel love his pro-staff and pro-service agenda. “It is therefore a thing of joy that the DG on assumption of office introduced positive reform which motivated personnel. The DG ensures return of covertness to service operations. The service has re-emerged as a leading secret service in the federation. “As the DG is performing well at the national level, his director in Osun state is equally keeping the flag flying. When the state director is doing well, we now see he is also following the lead of his boss, the DG. Osun state is peaceful , thanks to the non-partisanship and proactiveness of DSS personnel. “On behalf of all lovers of democracy here in Osun state, we thank the DG and his personnel for a job well done. Osun political questions demand consensus building rather than illegal self- help. “Our dear DG, keep the flag flying for the continuous safety and protections of our dear state and nation as whole.”
Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and the Senator representing Kogi State Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan had enjoyed a robust relationship before now. The first time I saw Senator Akpabio at a close range was during the wedding of Senator Natasha to Alema of Warri Kingdom, Chief Uduqghan. Worthy of note was the fact that Akpabio was around for almost two days. He didn’t lodge in any hotel: he stayed in the house of Nastaha, located at Obeiba-Ihima in Okehi local government of Kogi state. Throughout the programme that lasted for almost three days, Akpabio was around. This affirmed the good relationship between the Natasha family and the Akpabios. When Natasha won her case at the appeal and was sworn in, she enjoyed speedy recognition in the Red Chambers of the National Assembly. She had access to the floor at will. Senator Akpabio gave her an unhindered access to the floor whenever she raised her hand. She was lucky to always be in most of the official trips especially foreign ones. In fact, the achievement and activities of Natasha can only be likened to a ranking senator: nothing showed that it was her first time at the Red Chambers. This made her to shine not only to his constituency but to the nation at large. Even some of us who are not her supporters do commend the speed at which she’s carrying her activities in the senate, including the main legislative functions and the oversight functions. The question bothering the minds of interested onlookers now is what could have gone wrong with such robust relationship? Most of us imagined that the outburst by Senator Natasha on the floor of the Senate over seat arrangement could be diversionary; there appeared to be something more to it than meet the eye. In fact, there is nothing around Natasha to indicate that she’s in opposition at the Red Chamber before now. At a point, she became a concern to some APC senators because of the relevance she enjoyed from the very Senate President, Akpabio. Whatever it is however, it must be said that the recent development is not in the best interest of Senator Natasha and the Senatorial District she is representing. Of course, Senator Akpabio may have his short comings just like Senator Natasha, which is a confirmation of the simple fact that we are not perfect and cannot be. However, if her goal is to make impact in the legislative activities and the District she is representing, she needs to make maximum use of the policy of lobbying and to learn the art of politics inside the senate Chamber. She should not be carried away by people who are hailing her; those who are acknowledging her boldness. It cannot help her in the journey of her political career. She should understand that campaign is over and what she needs now is wisdom to pick from the low hanging fruits in the Red Chamber for the benefit of her constituency. As far as the 10th Senate is concerned, Senator Akpabio remains the boss, whether you take it or leave it. And it is difficult for one to win the war against one’s boss. She should avoid such war at all costs unless where she is pushed to the wall. I pray to God to grant her the wisdom to navigate through this phase.
Advertisement
Advertisement
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Senate Rules And Natasha’s Outburst: Facts Of The Matter,, By Ola Awoniyi
A drama on the floor of the Senate on Thursday, 20th February 2025, attracted varied commentaries on the social, print and broadcast media. The drama was both unnecessary and avoidable as it merely distracted from the business of the day in the Chamber.
Legislative activities, whether in the hallowed Chamber or in committee rooms, are guided by the Senate Rules. This may lead a first-timer at the public gallery to wonder if lawmakers do anything without reference to their Standing Rules. Every time they get the recognition of the Presiding Officer to contribute to a discussion in the chamber, Senators are guided by the Standing Rules in what to say. This is well known to the lawmakers. The Rules also stipulate sanctions for members whose actions or conducts deviate from the Rules. The Chamber is called hallowed because it is known for Order and decorum.
The drama of that Thursday started right at the commencement of the day’s business when the Senate Chief Whip, Senator Mohammed Tahir Monguno, raised a Point of Order to report Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, to the Senate on her disregard for the Senate Rules. Order 6, which Senator Monguno cited, stipulates that “the President of the Senate shall allocate a seat to each senator,” while section 6(2) states that senators may only speak from the seat allocated to them by the Presiding Officer. It also provides that the President of the Senate may change the allocation from time to time as the need arises.
Senator Monguno, relying on the rules stated above, submitted that “It is at the discretion of the Senate president, as circumstances may warrant, to change the seat of any Senator, based on circumstances that may crop up in the course of proceedings in the Senate.
“In the course of proceedings, two Senators – Ned Nwoko of the PDP and Senator Francis Ezenwa of the Labour Party, decamped to the APC, thereby necessitating their movement from the other side (Minority) to this side (Majority). In the exercise of the powers conferred on the President of the Senate, pursuant to Order 6(2), the President of the Senate decided to rearrange things, giving a directive to the Chief Whip to exercise that function. And pursuant to that directive, seats were reallocated and I want to report that Senator Natasha, having been given another seat, refused to vacate her former seat in flagrant violation of our Rules.”
Senator Monguno consequently referred the Senate to the Standing Rules, which mandate Senator Natasha to comply with the directive of the Presiding Officer to move to her new seat, failure of which she would be denied recognition to make any contribution during plenary.
After the Chief Whip landed on his Point of Order, the Senate President hit the gavel and pronounced that the Point of Order was sustained. This means that Senator Natasha could not speak on the floor of the Senate except from the new seat allocated to her.
Upon the Senate President’s ruling on the Point of Order, Senator Natasha sprang to her feet, waving the same document containing the Standing Rules and shouting, “Point of Order.” However, the Senate President reminded her that she could not speak outside her allocated seat.
Senator Natasha ignored the Presiding Officer’s ruling and continued to scream, citing Order 10, which has to do with the breach of privileges of a Senator.
Because she continued to scream, the Senate President ordered the Seargent-At-Arms to “take her out of the Chamber.” The Seargent-At-Arms moved swiftly in her direction but hesitated to act, probably expecting the Senator to calm down and comply with the Senate President’s ruling and avert her evacuation from the Chamber. However, the Senate President kept a dignified silence. He did not repeat his directive, obviously to avert aggravating the drama.
By this time, some Senators had walked over to pet Senator Natasha, but she rebuffed their intervention and continued uttering discourteous statements.
Against the backdrop of the unfortunate drama, commentators have raised some questions: Why should the Senate President reallocate Senators’ seats? Why can’t Senators speak from any seat in the Chamber? Why wasn’t Senator Natasha allowed to explain her objection to her seat being changed?
A reference was also made to an incident on 17th October 2018 when Senator Godswill Akpabio protested being denied recognition to speak from a seat other than the one allocated to him. Are the two incidents similar?
The answers to the questions above are provided by the Senate Rules and Procedure. The Standing Orders book guides the Senate’s legislative business.
Pertinent to this issue, are clauses that empower the Senate President to allocate and reallocate seats as the need arises. Seats change in the Chamber from time to time without senators protesting because they know that occasions demand it and their rules permit it.
Senators do not sit just anywhere at the plenary. This is to ensure Order and decorum in the hallowed Chamber. The practice in the Parliament all over the democratic world is that members sit with their party colleagues. Ruling party or majority party members have a section in the Chamber and those of the opposition or minority parties another section.
A movement of members across party lines through defection will automatically necessitate an adjustment of the sitting arrangement.
Therefore, as explained by the Senate Chief Whip on Thursday, the change of Senator Natasha’s seat was made necessary by the defection on Wednesday 5th February 2025 of Senator Ned Nwoko of the Delta North Senatorial District from the PDP to the APC and Senator Ezenwa Francis Onyewuchi of the Imo East Senatorial District from Labour Party to APC as well.
Therefore, Senator Natasha was not the only Senator affected by the changes in the sitting arrangement. The difference with the others was that they graciously accepted the change, obviously seeing no point in making a drama out of an innocuous, routine development in the hallowed Chamber.
Was Senator Natasha denied her right to speak in the Chamber that day? Nope. She was not recognised to speak because she was not on her seat, just like Senator Akpabio was not allowed to speak from Senator Ali Ndume’s seat in 2018, even though Akpabio moved over to another seat that day because the microphone on his allocated seat had malfunctioned.
The then Senate President, Bukola Saraki was firm in his ruling that Akpabio would only be allowed to speak from an alternative seat (with a functioning microphone), which the Clerk of the Senate already provided him, but which he had rejected. Akpabio protested, but he eventually accepted the reallocated seat and apologized to the Senate.
That shows that Akpabio did not invent the rule that prevented Senator Natasha from speaking outside the seat allocated to her. He also did not apply the Rules to embarrass or victimize her.
Granting her recognition to speak after a Point of Order was raised by the Chief Whip and sustained would have been inconsistent with the Senate Rule. All that Senator Natasha was asked to do was to move to her seat to state her case of the alleged breach of her privilege.
It is noteworthy that neither of her two Senator colleagues from Kogi State agreed with Natasha on this issue. Senator Jibrin Isah, representing Kogi East, apologized on behalf of the Kogi Senate Caucus to the Senate while Senator Sunday Karimi, representing Kogi West, asked Natasha to apologise to the Senate for her conduct.
To demonstrate that he had no personal issues with her, the Senate President eventually offered an apology to the Senate on her behalf for holding up the day’s proceeding, citing his own 2018 experience of how a firm application of the Rules can hurt some egos and be misinterpreted.
***Ola Awoniyi wrote in from Abuja