BY ILO FAUSTINUS CHINEDU (PhD)
The suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has sparked significant discourse on gender dynamics, political ethics, and institutional trust in Nigeria. However, beyond the immediate controversy lies a deeper concern: the implications of her actions on Nigeria’s image and the credibility of the Nigerian Senate. From a reputation management perspective, her approach—seeking international intervention rather than exhausting due process within the Nigerian legal and legislative frameworks—raises critical questions about nationalism, institutional integrity, and the risks of misinformation.
The Reputation Risk to Nigeria’s Institutions:
Nigeria’s reputation on the global stage is closely tied to the credibility of its institutions. When a high-ranking public official fails to adhere to the code of ethics, bypasses local adjudication mechanisms, and seeks intervention from foreign bodies, it signals a lack of faith in national institutions. This could erode investor confidence, deepen public mistrust in governance, and create a fertile ground for international actors to interfere in domestic policies.
By addressing the United Nations and framing her suspension as a systemic attack on democracy and gender equality, Akpoti-Uduaghan has positioned Nigeria as a nation incapable of ensuring justice within its institutions. This portrayal undermines the Nigerian judiciary, the legislature, and democratic governance, reinforcing negative stereotypes that the country lacks an effective rule of law.
Furthermore, her actions inadvertently fuel disinformation and misinformation. By presenting an external narrative that links her suspension to gender discrimination and alleged sexual harassment, rather than legislative proceedings, she risks distorting the facts and misleading the international community. The Inter-Parliamentary Union’s willingness to investigate, while commendable from a human rights perspective, suggests a scenario where external bodies could unduly influence Nigeria’s legislative processes.
The Ethical and Legal Imperative of Due Process:
A fundamental principle of democracy is the respect for due process. Nigerian law provides clear avenues for contesting perceived injustices, including internal legislative appeal mechanisms and the judiciary. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s decision to take her grievances to the global stage before fully exhausting these domestic remedies raises ethical concerns.
1. Legislative Integrity: The Nigerian Senate, like other parliaments worldwide, has internal rules governing conduct. Her suspension, as stated by the Senate, was a result of procedural violations, not her allegations against the Senate President. In comparison, the U.S. Congress enforces strict ethical guidelines, where members facing disciplinary action must first exhaust internal review mechanisms before seeking external intervention. Similarly, the UK Parliament maintains a robust code of conduct, ensuring that disciplinary matters are addressed through established committees rather than through international advocacy. The German Bundestag upholds institutional discipline by requiring lawmakers to adhere to parliamentary procedures, with independent oversight bodies handling misconduct cases to maintain legislative integrity.
2. Judicial Review: Nigeria’s judiciary has previously ruled in favor of lawmakers who were unjustly suspended. If Akpoti-Uduaghan believes her suspension was unconstitutional, she should trust the competence of the court handling her case rather than seeking external arbitration. For clarity, several Nigerian legislators have successfully challenged their suspensions in court, including Hon. Dino Melaye and 10 others (2010), Hon. Independence Ogunewe and 10 others (2010), Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin (2018), Senator Ali Ndume (2017), and Senator Abdul Ningi (2024). In each instance, the courts declared the suspensions illegal and ordered the lawmakers’ reinstatement with full entitlements. Choosing not to follow this precedent suggests a preference for public sympathy over legal resolution.
3. Ethical Responsibility: As a senator, Akpoti-Uduaghan has a duty to strengthen the institutions she represents. Undermining the credibility of the Senate and judiciary not only weakens these institutions but also contradicts the very principles of democracy and governance she claims to defend. Her actions risk eroding public trust in Nigeria’s legislative and judicial systems, creating a perception of instability that can have far-reaching consequences. Furthermore, successive Nigerian governments have worked tirelessly to improve the nation’s global image, promoting an environment conducive to foreign investment and economic growth. Through diplomatic engagements, judicial reforms, and legislative improvements, both past and present administrations have sought to project Nigeria as a stable and reliable destination for investors.
Nationalism vs. Political Opportunism:
A core aspect of responsible leadership is the prioritization of national interest over personal ambitions. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s UN address, while seemingly an advocacy for justice, can be interpreted as an anti-nationalist stance that exposes Nigeria’s internal affairs to unnecessary external scrutiny.
While it is essential to advocate for women’s rights and fair treatment, doing so through the lens of personal grievance rather than systemic reform risks trivializing legitimate struggles. The lack of support from her female colleagues in the Senate raises further questions about the credibility of her claims. If gender discrimination were at the heart of her suspension, why have other women in the Senate not rallied behind her?
Restoring Institutional Credibility:
For Nigeria to maintain its reputation as a functioning democracy, certain steps must be taken to reinforce institutional credibility:
1. Strengthening Internal Conflict Resolution Mechanisms – The Senate must ensure that disciplinary actions are transparent and well-communicated to prevent misinterpretation.
2. Judicial Oversight – Courts should prioritize cases of legislative disputes to reinforce the supremacy of the Nigerian legal system over international intervention.
.
3. Combating Misinformation – The government must actively counter misleading narratives that threaten Nigeria’s institutional reputation.
4. Balancing Gender Advocacy with Institutional Trust – Genuine advocacy for women’s rights must be separated from political opportunism to ensure credibility and effectiveness.
.
Conclusion:
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s approach to challenging her suspension highlights broader issues surrounding political ethics, due process, and nationalism. While women’s representation and fair treatment in politics are critical issues, seeking international intervention over a procedural dispute risks Nigeria’s reputation and institutional integrity. The ethical path remains clear: grievances must be addressed through proper legal and legislative channels to uphold Nigeria’s sovereignty and democratic principles.
About the Author:
Dr. Ilo Faustinus Chinedu is a seasoned strategic leader with over 17 years of experience across diverse fields, including public relations, ethical governance, and local governance systems. He has excelled in both public service and social development initiatives, working with governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Comment here