How Wise or Foolish Is Senator Akpabio?
3 min read
By Eculaw Media
When Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan rose on the floor of the Senate to voice her objections regarding her newly assigned seat, Senator Godswill Akpabio had several options to address the situation. The most prudent response would have been to acknowledge her concerns as a fellow senator expressing dissatisfaction with a seating decision. He could have calmly responded, “I appreciate your concerns. You’re not the only senator affected by changes in seating arrangements. I will direct the Chief Whip, along with a few other senators, to investigate this matter and recommend how we can address your grievances. In the meantime, please continue in your current seat until we resolve this issue.”
Instead, Akpabio reacted with anger—a dangerous emotion for any leader. Rather than listening, he called the Chief Whip to read the Senate rules, though the Whip struggled to articulate them coherently. Notably, he pointed out that the seating of senators is subject to the discretion of the President of the Senate, implying that changes depend on specific circumstances. This admission raised an important question: If seating changes are contingent upon circumstances, shouldn’t the Senate President justify these circumstances to the affected senator?
By refusing to allow Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to express her objections, Akpabio made a significant misstep that resonated beyond his own leadership. That moment marked a turning point in the Senate chamber, transforming it from a deliberative space into one dominated by authoritarianism. What harm would it have caused to listen to the aggrieved senator?
As Akpoti-Uduaghan attempted to read a portion of the rules that contradicted the Chief Whip’s justification for her seat change, Akpabio cut her off, turning off her microphone. It was acceptable for the Chief Whip to reference the rules to support the seating change, but not for her to cite the same rules in defense of her position. Overpowering her with his voice, Akpabio demanded her removal and announced that she would face suspension—a punishment declared before any committee could review the matter.
What prompted Akpabio to react in such a manner? Is he generally irritable and quick to anger? Or was there a personal history with Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan that influenced his perception of the situation? It’s evident that with ongoing allegations of sexual harassment, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was not solely focused on her seating assignment; she was also weighing Akpabio’s behavior both in the past and in that moment. Similarly, Akpabio’s reaction was influenced by the serious nature of the accusations that had recently come to light, framing his response to the seating issue.
By allowing the situation to escalate as it did, Akpabio demonstrated profoundly poor judgment. He may have become accustomed to a sense of impunity, believing that he could act without consequence. This avoidance of careful consideration and empathy sent powerful signals to his allies—Senators Nwaebonyi, Imasuen, Karimi, as well as Governors Ododo and Yahaya Bello—emboldening them in their attempts to undermine Akpoti-Uduaghan. However, this entire strategy has backfired disastrously for Akpabio.
Recent articles in the Washington Times and other prominent international publications indicate that Akpabio is in serious trouble. His reputation is tarnished, and his political career hangs in the balance. As we reflect on the origins of this controversy, we are left to ponder: How wise—or foolish—has Akpabio been in his decision-making? The unfolding events serve as a cautionary tale for other Nigerian politicians: a sense of impunity may lead to unforeseen challenges when one least expects them.
