The Senate Deputy Chief Whip, Senator Onyekachi Nwebonyi, has strongly disagreed with former Senate President, Bukola Saraki, over his call for an open and transparent investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment leveled against Senate President Godswill Akpabio by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Nwebonyi described Saraki’s stance as a misguided attempt to draw a false equivalence between Akpabio’s situation and an ethics inquiry Saraki faced during his own tenure as Senate President.
According to Nwebonyi, the two cases are “worlds apart in context, substance, and motivation.”
While Saraki stressed the need to protect the integrity of the Senate by allowing due process to take its course, Nwebonyi argued that Natasha’s allegations should not be entertained as a matter of legislative inquiry. Instead, he characterized them as a “politically motivated stunt” aimed at evading disciplinary proceedings against her.
“If we take Saraki’s argument to its logical conclusion, we would be establishing a dangerous precedent—one where any habitual liar can throw out an unsubstantiated allegation and expect the Senate to come to a halt while they are entertained,” Nwebonyi said.
He further pointed out that Akpoti-Uduaghan has a history of making false and reckless allegations against prominent figures, including Reno Omokri, Dino Melaye, and Yahaya Bello, all of which lacked credible evidence.
According to Nwebonyi, one of the biggest red flags in Natasha’s claim is the suspicious timing of the allegations. He noted that the supposed incident took place over a year ago but only came to light after Natasha was summoned for disciplinary action in the Senate.
“There was no prior complaint, no record of distress, no mention to her husband, and no disclosure to female colleagues in the Senate. Instead, the accusation was unleashed only at the point of reckoning,” Nwebonyi stated.
He also pointed out that if Natasha’s claims were genuine, she would have raised them on the floor of the Senate or through proper legislative channels, rather than through media interviews.
“If she truly believed that she was being victimized because of an alleged sexual harassment incident, the proper forum to raise such a grievance would have been the Senate itself—not a television interview,” he argued.
In his response to Saraki’s insistence on a transparent probe, Nwebonyi dismissed the comparison, stating that Saraki’s case was an administrative matter regarding the importation of an official vehicle.
Saraki had voluntarily subjected himself to scrutiny before the Senate Ethics Committee, leading to a resolution of the issue.
“Dr. Saraki’s appeal to precedent is misplaced. His case was about official duties and was addressed in a manner that reinforced institutional accountability. This case, however, is about a personal vendetta and a desperate attempt to escape disciplinary action,” Nwebonyi asserted.
While rejecting Saraki’s approach, Nwebonyi maintained that due process must be followed—not in entertaining Natasha’s allegations within the Senate, but in ensuring she answers to the Ethics Committee for her own misconduct.
He laid out three key steps, insisting that Natasha must first answer to the Senate Ethics Committee regarding her alleged misconduct.
“If she believes she has a valid sexual harassment claim, she should file a legal case in the appropriate forum instead of using the Senate and media as shields. The Senate must not allow itself to be blackmailed into legitimizing a distraction campaign meant to avoid accountability.”
Nwebonyi concluded his statement by emphasizing that the Senate must be protected from political manipulation, rather than being dragged into an unsubstantiated media circus.
“The Senate and Nigerians should not fall for this diversionary tactic. The Senate must stay focused, maintain order, and refuse to be blackmailed into legitimizing what is clearly an opportunistic falsehood,” he declared.
