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.
Yusuf Ozi-Usman nipr is our Editor-in-chief.
