—Says ground 23 of exposes the truth
In this interview, Sir Kenny Okolugbo, media strategist and consultant to Senate President Godswill Akpabio, addresses the controversy surrounding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, her alleged forceful return to the Senate, and the allegations against the Senate President. He argues that her actions were premeditated and calculated for media optics — not lawful conduct. He cites her own appeal documents, especially Ground 23, as proof of her manipulation of the public narrative.
Excerpts:
Was the Senate officially notified of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s return following the court ruling?
No, there was absolutely no formal notification sent to the Senate leadership or the Clerk of the National Assembly regarding her planned return. As clearly stated by Senator Yemi Adaramodu, who serves as the Senate Spokesman, the judgment of Honourable Justice Binta Nyako did not mandate the Senate to take any specific action on the matter of her suspension. There was no express order for her recall or reinstatement.
Her lawyer, Juan Numa, SAN, wrote a letter to the Senate, and it was duly acknowledged and replied by the Clerk of the National Assembly. That alone should have settled the matter. But instead, Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan chose to escalate the issue through media dramatics, pretending she had a court-backed mandate to resume. That was false and misleading.
So how do you interpret the event of her attempting to force her way into the National Assembly with a group of supporters?
What we saw on the 22nd of July 2025 was a deliberate act of provocation. Senator Natasha arrived at the gates of the National Assembly flanked by street urchins and political hangers-on. This was not a legislative act — it was pure political theatre. Her aim was to incite public sympathy and paint the Senate in a bad light, all based on a false premise.
Now, here’s where it gets even more disturbing. Ground 23 of her appeal in Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan vs Clerk of the National Assembly & Ors makes it explicitly clear that the judgment she claims gave her right of return did not grant her such relief. Let me quote it directly:
“The learned trial judge erred in law and abdicated her judicial duty when Her Ladyship, after rightly adjudging the Appellant’s suspension by the 2nd Respondent for a period of six months as excessive, outside the contemplation of the Constitution and the enabling Act, as well as ultra vires Section 63 of the Constitution, failed to expressly make a clear pronouncement SET ASIDE and/or NULLIFY same accordingly.”
This means the trial court did not nullify the suspension — and Senator Natasha knew this. Yet, she invaded the National Assembly in a manner clearly capable of breaching public peace, with no legal foundation to support her action. That tells you everything. Her conduct was not only unjustified — it was premeditated. She intended to create a scene for political and media mileage. And that is deeply irresponsible.
Assuming the judgement had supported her recall, what should the process of resumption have been?
There is a well-established process for such matters in the Senate. If there had been an actual order of recall, it would have been transmitted to the Clerk of the National Assembly, who would then inform the Senate leadership. The leadership, guided by legal advisers, would deliberate and possibly present the matter on the floor for a voice vote.
If approved, the Sergeant-at-Arms would reopen her office, and she would receive a formal notice of reinstatement. That’s how the rule of law operates. Not by storming the gate with hired supporters and cameras. The Senate is a constitutional institution, not a reality TV set.
Some critics argue that the way Senator Godswill Akpabio has handled the matter appears politically motivated. How do you respond?
That argument simply doesn’t hold water. Senator Godswill Akpabio has acted in full compliance with the Constitution and Senate rules. He has not personalised the issue, nor has he acted unilaterally. The Senate’s decision was a collective one, grounded in law, particularly Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution which grants each chamber the authority to regulate its proceedings. Additionally, Rule 14(2) of the Senate Standing Orders provides internal disciplinary mechanisms.
She went to court, not the Senate. She made wild accusations, not the Senate President. The suspension came after due process. She was guilty of violation of order 6.1, 6.2 etc There’s nothing political about holding a Senator accountable to the rules of conduct governing the chamber.
She has made multiple allegations against the Senate President. How do you react to that?
Her allegations have been nothing short of outlandish and, quite frankly, malicious. She started with an allegation of sexual harassment — saying it occurred on December 8, 2023. Yet, on December 9, 2023 she publicly praised Senator Akpabio and continued to enjoy Senate privileges. The timing of her accusation — coming only after she lost her committee chairmanship and her seat was reassigned — is suspicious and appears to be a classic case of weaponizing personal grievance.
She later alleged Senator Akpabio instructed Yahaya Bello to assassinate her in Kogi, then claimed he ordered her to shake down ministers. Most absurd of all, she accused him of organ harvesting involving a woman who died in 2022 — six years after his wife’s illness in 2016. This is not advocacy — it’s desperation. And none of these allegations has been backed by a single piece of evidence.
She also claims Akpabio has pending EFCC cases. What’s the truth?
There is no truth to that claim. Senator Akpabio has no pending case with the EFCC. This is another example of her strategy: say the most outrageous thing, knowing that some people will believe it just because it’s in the headlines. That is reckless, damaging to institutions, and ultimately undermines genuine efforts to fight corruption.
There’s a concern about lack of representation for Kogi Central during her suspension. Has her constituency suffered?
Actually, no. Legislative work has continued. For example, the bill establishing the Federal Medical Centre, Ihima Kogi State— which is in her ancestral hometown — was passed into law during her suspension and is now awaiting presidential assent. That’s significant. She has also introduced the Gold Reserve Bill and the Diaspora Banking Bill — both of which are progressing.
The idea that her people have been completely unrepresented is false. But again, it shows that the Senate has never sought to punish her constituents. What we are dealing with here is one person’s refusal to obey the same rules that bind all 109 senators.
Would an apology resolve this matter?
Absolutely. When she was suspended on March 6, the Senate inserted a clause — Proviso 2 — stating clearly that her suspension could be lifted immediately upon tendering a public apology to the Senate and its leadership. That shows magnanimity and fairness.
Instead, she escalated the situation. Even Brekete Family, where she once went for sympathy, later advised her to apologise. She ignored that. Her defiance has dragged this issue far longer than necessary.
Do you think this incident could discourage female participation in the Senate?
Unfortunately, yes — it might. Nigeria has only four female senators out of 109. Senator Natasha’s conduct sets a bad precedent. When someone uses gender as a shield for misconduct or to push false narratives, it hurts genuine advocacy for women’s rights.
We need more women in politics, but they must also uphold the integrity and discipline expected of lawmakers. Her actions risk undermining future complaints of harassment or discrimination, because people will reference this case and wonder if it’s another stunt. That’s a setback for the cause of gender equity.
Why do some in the media appear sympathetic to her narrative?
Some media houses are more interested in sensationalism than facts. As a consultant on media and strategy, I’ve personally encountered journalists who admit they know the facts but would rather push a dramatic angle. That’s unethical.
Initially, we refused to engage the press because we didn’t want to amplify her theatrics. But once we saw Ground 23 of her appeal, it became necessary to clarify. It’s now in the public domain — she lied about the court ordering her reinstatement. She appealed the entire judgement. That’s proof she wasn’t being honest with Nigerians.
Do you foresee an end to this soon?
It depends on her. If Senator Natasha tenders an apology and retracts her unfounded allegations — this can end immediately. But if she continues this performance, then legal processes will take their course.
She knew Ground 23 existed. She knew her appeal wasn’t about “content” alone. She has deceived the public — and perhaps even herself. Her actions do not reflect the conduct of a distinguished Senator. We can only hope reason prevails.
