Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has criticised the new minimum wage of N70,000 which was approved for workers by President Bola Tinubu last year.

Obasanjo has claimed it is not enough to cover their basic needs, including transportation, food, and housing.

The former President also said labour leaders have betrayed workers by prioritising personal interests over collective welfare.

“That is the situation in Nigeria in the third decade of the 21st century.

“The minimum wage does not even cover transportation costs for some workers, let alone food, housing, and family upkeep,” Obasanjo wrote in his newly released book, “Nigeria: Past and Future”.

Obasanjo also claimed labour leader are more interested in pursuing personal interests.

“Because of their political ambitions, most union leaders are ineffective compared to the founding fathers’ expectations.

“The workers thereby become victims of selfish leaders who use their positions to achieve political heights.

“Rather than negotiate in the interest of the workers, they do sabre-rattling and they are called into the room and money in large amounts is stuffed into their hands and they keep quiet.

“That has been the case since 2015. And, if anything, it is going from bad to worse,” Obasanjo added.

[DailyPost]

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former presidential candidate of the Labour Party’s Peter Obi have expressed support for Lagos-based corps member Ushie Ushie Rita Uguamaye, popularly known as Raye, following her viral video criticizing the Federal Government’s policies.

Raye had gained widespread attention after condemning President Bola Tinubu’s administration over the rising cost of living. 

She also alleged that some National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) officials threatened her over her remarks on the country’s economic situation.

However, Atiku and Obi praised Raye, calling her a brave young woman who deserves support rather than condemnation.

Atiku who wrote on X, said: “Raye embodies the spirit of a new generation of women who champion the ideals of popular participation and unwavering advocacy in the political sphere. I deeply admire her boldness and wisdom—her fearless resolve to speak truth to power, undeterred by the weight of opposition.

“She follows in the footsteps of formidable trailblazers like Gambo Sawaba, Funmilayo Ransom-Kuti, Margaret Ekpo, and countless other women who have stood resolute in defense of the common good.

“Rather than being met with hostility, Raye deserves encouragement and support. She is a shining emblem of the Nigerian youth—a testament to the long-held promise that the leaders of tomorrow are already among us, ready to shape a better future.”

For Obi, Raye’s experience “highlights a troubling trend in our nation—one where voices of reason and truth are met with intimidation rather than dialogue and engagement”.

The former Anambra Governor said the NYSC member’s experience is also “not isolated”.

“I, too, have been subjected to threats for daring to offer constructive suggestions and comments. I now face daily intimidation, harassment, and name-calling simply for expressing solution-based views on government policies. Such actions are antithetical to the principles of democracy. A government that silences its citizens is not democratic or one that is subject to accountability and good governance and is most often corrupt,” Obi wrote on his X handle.

He called on President Bola Tinubu’s government to “reflect deeply on its approach to dissent and recognize that constructive criticism is a cornerstone of democratic progress.

“To all patriotic Nigerians: Our nation’s future and development depend on our collective courage to speak out against misgovernance, injustice, and intimidation,” the LP presidential candidate for the 2023 election said.
“Do not let fear stifle your voice. Stand firm, support one another, and continue to advocate for Nigeria we all envision—a nation where freedom of speech is sacrosanct, and leadership is accountable to the people, especially in critical areas such as education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation.

“A just and prosperous Nigeria should be one where people like Raye are encouraged to speak out about the challenges they face, while those in government take urgent action to address these issues.”

China have included Brazil-born midfielder Serginho in their squad for crucial World Cup qualifiers, less than a week after he obtained Chinese citizenship.

In recent years China’s struggling national team has followed some other countries by turning to naturalised players, with limited impact on results.

Also named in Branko Ivankovic’s 27-man squad is Liverpool-born former England youth international defender Tyias Browning, now called Jiang Guangtai.

Serginho, known in China as Sai Erjiniao, obtained citizenship on March 12 and played his first minutes for the national team in a closed-doors friendly against Kuwait on Sunday, according to state broadcaster CCTV.

The 30-year-old, whose birth name is Sergio Oliveira, has played in China since 2020.

China are away at Saudi Arabia on Thursday and home to Australia on Tuesday next week as they battle to qualify for the 2026 World Cup in North America.

They are bottom of their group on six points but only trail Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain on goal difference, with Australia one point ahead. Japan lead the group on 16 points.

The top two will qualify automatically while the third and fourth-placed teams enter another qualifying round.

Serginho began his senior career at Brazilian club Santos, before moving to Japan’s Kashima Antlers in 2018.

He joined Changchun Yatai in 2020, scoring 30 goals in 100 appearances, before leaving for their Chinese Super League rivals Beijing Guoan in February.

Teenage prospects Wang Yudong and Liu Chengyu are also in the squad selected by Croatian head coach Ivankovic.

Brazil-born players Elkeson, Alan and Fernandinho, who had been regular performers for China, were not included in the latest squad.

China are ranked 90th in the world and have only qualified for the World Cup once, in 2002, when they failed to earn a point or score a goal.

AFP

Some Nigerians in the social media are beginning to question whether the system in the United States, US, under Donald Trump is democracy. But I think they should start by asking themselves if what we practise in Nigeria is democracy. 

Section 14(2) of our Constitution declares unequivocally thus: “Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.” Since neither Americans nor Nigerians exercise sovereignty, then neither country, properly speaking, practises democracy.

This is because democracy is basically the decentralisation of power in ways that ensure the empowerment of the people in the affairs of the state and society; the humanisation of the political arena; and the development of society. To put this in a more contemporary usage, democracy is a system of government by popular representation, based on the vote of the electorate in which the will of the people prevails.

First, we may need to agree that democracy is not value-free. In fact, it comes in various shades and forms. In other words, there is not a single road to democracy. So, concepts such as ‘Western Democracy’ and ‘Liberal Democracy’ are, at best, contentious. Rather, there are various types of democracy, be it British Westminister, Chinese Peoples’ Democracy or American Presidential.

Today, US democracy has delivered what is perhaps its most unique verdict and most powerful President since its July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence. Donald Trump, operating outside the majority Republican Party, seized the party with his Make America Great Again, MAGA, group which is now the dominant faction.

He won both the popular and Electoral College votes. The party he dominates controls both the Senate and House of Representatives. Additionally, his party has a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court. So, perhaps for the first time in US history, one man has control of the Executive, Parliament and Supreme Court majority. But for the fact that this is happening in the US, it would have been called a dictatorship. Conscious of his powers, Trump is trying to run the United States with Executive Orders, and the world with sanctions and threats.

So, democracy is not a given. There is no commodity called democracy which can be bought off the shelves. It is a product of each society. One of the reasons why democracy seems to falter in Africa is that we have tried to copy other peoples’ political systems and, uncritically, adapted them to our situation. Part of the fallout has been political instability, so serious that all West African countries, except Senegal, have witnessed destabilising military coups.

So, Africa must develop its own democracy, based on its history, values, culture, tradition and diversities. The basis of such democracy must be equity for, and equality of, all. This means that we must not allow the rule of any dominant or powerful ethno-nationality, religion or region. Minorities must have a sense of belonging and clear roles in running the state.

We must allow ideas to blossom and groups to breathe. For instance, communities should have the right to form political parties of their choice, based on their needs and aspirations, as it was in the First Republic.

So, the political system should be liberalised, democratised and humanised. Africa’s democracy should ensure that the populace is so empowered that even if the electoral system throws up an Adolf Hitler or a Donald Trump, the populace should be able to curb his excesses.

Also, democracy is not a religion. It is not a set of beliefs. Rather, it is practical governance that must solve the existential and developmental needs of the people.

One of the greatest Africans that ever lived was Amilcar Cabral, the liberation fighter who led the independence movement of Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde. He said in 1974: “Always bear in mind that the people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children…”

So, the people are not just living for the ideals of democracy, capitalism, liberalism, socialism, or any ‘ism’. Rather, they want food on the table, clothes on their backs, roofs over their heads, healthcare when they are sick, education for their children and security of their lives and property.

 It is if these basic needs are met that they would fight for principles, or fight to ensure they are provided their basic needs. If democracy provides these basic needs, God help anybody who tries to endanger the system that provides them.

Nobody needs talk to my generation of Nigerians about the nightmare that was the cumulative 29-year military misrule that we suffered. This is why some of us insist that democracy must deliver dividends to the people, if we expect them to defend it.

However, the issue is beyond unconstitutional; there is the equally important issue of peoples’ reaction to such unconstitutional change.

In clearing the debris of democracy in places like Nigeria and reconstructing people- centred democracies, it is important to re- orientate the military. It should not be encumbered with basic civilian duties such as involvement in running elections. Its personnel’s role should simply be to perform their civic duty of voting.It should simply adhere to its code of ethics. 

By taking the road to democracy, we are basically saving the military from itself as it has the tendency to commit suicide by constantly purging its ranks in the name of coups, counter-coups, attempted coups and phantom coups. Although the military is claimed to be the strongest institution in society, but in reality it is one of the weakest. History has shown that when the state collapses, the military is the first that goes under. Put differently, the first sign that a state has collapsed is the collapse of its military. The first indication that the Syrian state had collapsed on December 8, 2024 was that its mighty military had melted away.

In contrast, the civil service remained, and continued to run administration. In reality, the civil service that is supposed to be seen, not heard, is a far stronger institution. So any thought that the military in any country is above society is illusory. The military must be humble and dutifully serve the society which is the only body that can defend it when the chips are down.

As we build or rebuild democracy, Nigerians should realise that the democracy of the rich, by the rich for the rich, as in the US, will not be of use. Nor will the democracy of the cunning by the cunning for the smart, as in Europe, be useful. Our democracy, more so as we head towards 2027, will not be useful if based on ethnocentric, religious, regional or calculations by the greedy. Only a people- centred democracy where no one will be oppressed will serve our needs.

In his book “The Power of Regrets”, Daniel Pink explores how retrospection can be a powerful tool for growth and improvement. Reflecting on the Supreme Court judgment that has thrown Rivers State into chaos, I ask myself fundamental questions. If the Supreme Court justices were to reflect on their ruling, would they regret the consequences it has unleashed? What about the two primary political figures at the heart of the crisis—Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister Nyesom Wike? What could be their regrets when they reflect on what is going on? Most significantly, the people of Rivers State, bearing the brunt of the judgment’s repercussions, indeed have the deepest regrets, spanning social, economic, and political dimensions. Their sense of injustice is palpable. Regrets are a part of life. Pink said clearly from his research that we all have something we wish we had done differently.
Justice is the bedrock of any democratic society, providing stability, fairness, and order. However, when a Supreme Court ruling not only deepens an existing crisis but also fuels political strife, it calls into question the Judiciary’s integrity and role in governance. The recent Supreme Court judgment concerning Rivers State has ignited a political firestorm, raising fundamental questions about its implications for governance, democracy, and the rule of law.

A meta-analysis of 134 expert legal commentaries in the media on the ruling reveals an overwhelming consensus—130 commentators argue that the verdict did more harm than good, failing to uphold legal standards and instead entrenching political instability. Those 130 commentators believe that the apex court did not dwell on the law but rather on extraneous issues. Only four legal experts expressed a differing opinion, highlighting the near-universal disapproval of the judgment within the legal community.
Justice Mojeed Owoade (rtd) led 11-man Independent Judicial Accountability Panel delivered a scathing critique of the judgment. The panel noted that the Supreme Court failed to resolve the crucial issue of the alleged defection of 27 lawmakers, leaving a gap in legal interpretation. In their words, “the judgment of the Supreme Court in the consolidated appeals leaves a gap as to whether the issue of the alleged defection of 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is still alive or has been settled. This is because the court commented on the defection issue without actually addressing it.” This failure is significant given that a similar case in 2012 saw the Supreme Court uphold the removal of lawmakers who defected without due process.

One of the most contentious aspects of the judgment was its handling of local government elections. The Supreme Court verdict in annulling the elections did not follow any precedence known to law. To make matters more complicated, the Supreme Court nullified the elections without providing a timeline for fresh polls, leaving the fate of governance in limbo. LGA chairmen have been elected and sworn in yet the Supreme Court without hearing the chairmen or their political parties annulled the election. The only justification given by the apex court is that INEC had not updated the voter register. The fact that this is a hatchet job does not require a soothsayer .
This judicial oversight has triggered widespread confusion. Over 10,000 local government workers remain uncertain about their employment status. Vital social services may be affected .
Even more curious is the fact that 32 other states have conducted local government elections under similar conditions without interference. Why was Rivers State singled out? The Supreme Court ruling raises serious concerns about selective judicial intervention and inconsistency in legal precedents.

In another troubling move, the Supreme Court ruling directing the withholding of federal allocations to Rivers State, a constitutional entitlement without preconditions , has plunged the people of Rivers state into financial uncertainty. How could the Supreme Court expose the people of Rivers State to unprecedented suffering based on a disagreement between two politicians? The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the federal government lacks the authority to withhold statutory allocations due to constitutional infractions, as seen in the case of Lagos State vs. the Federal Government. This action contradicts the court’s precedent, particularly in the landmark Lagos State vs. Federal Government case, where the court ruled that federal allocations cannot be withheld due to constitutional infractions.
The impact of this decision is profound. Thousands of civil servants face delayed salaries and economic hardship. Infrastructure projects and public services have ground to a halt. The ruling has exacerbated economic instability in a state critical to Nigeria’s oil revenue, which accounts for nearly 40% of the country’s crude oil production. Instead of resolving the crisis, the Supreme Court ruling has deepened the political turmoil in Rivers State, creating a perception of partisanship within the Judiciary. By failing to uphold impartial justice, the court has inadvertently set a dangerous precedent where judicial rulings can be weaponised for political ends. Future political conflicts may escalate as parties exploit judicial verdict gas.
Fubara and Wike, who is fighting through his proxies, must be full of regrets if they have a conscience. The thrill of defeat and the agony of victory cannot help them. For Wike, the Supreme Court ruling has given him an opportunity to assert his dominance over Rivers State’s political landscape- real or imagined . After the Supreme Court judgement, Wike has invested time, media appearance and money to escalate the crisis and prove that he is the “political god of Rivers State “. If Wike has any regrets,they are likely overshadowed by his sense of imperial entitlement .
Fubara, on the other hand, has struggled to maintain stability while attempting to comply with the apex court ruling. He has repeatedly attempted to present the budget to the Rivers State House of Assembly, highlighting his commitment to complying with legal processes. The intentional act of the Assembly making itself unavailable for the Governor to present the budget is not about Rivers State’s interest but about their ego and one man’s interest. They have prioritised their personal and political gains over the well-being of Rivers people. Added to that is the assembly’s latest attempt to ambush the Chief Judge of the state and hound him out of office.

While politicians manoeuvre for power, the real victims of this crisis are the ordinary people of Rivers State. Rivers people will be exposed to unprecedented social dislocation, crimes and hardship. The judgment has led to economic hardship due to delayed salaries and disrupted services. Increased crime rates have been fuelled by political instability and financial strain. There has been an erosion of trust in the Judiciary and democratic institutions.
Furthermore, the judgment risks disrupting Nigeria’s oil revenue. Niger Delta youths and militant groups witnessing the impoverishment of their families while their resources sustain the nation, may resist oil extraction, further threatening national economic stability.

This is one judgement that, in all respect has led to the displacement of the confidence of the people in the Judiciary by the perceived manipulation of judicial processes and proceedings in the far-reaching decisions of the Supreme Court on issues of defection of the 27 former lawmakers that were not pleaded by the parties before it or tried by the Federal High Court. Rivers people and the rest of Nigerians cannot understand how the Judiciary in the 21st century Nigeria would allow a baleful manipulation of the processes to allow a clear violation of Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution by defectors to the point of the Supreme Court rewarding such travesty by punishing the Governor who at all material times has worked to protect and defend the Constitution by his Oath of office.

The Supreme Court should have better handled the critical point of the status of the 27 decamping legislators. A more balanced approach would have sent a different signal . In the past, the Judiciary has taken firmer stances on similar cases, such as in 2007 when lawmakers who defected in Anambra State were asked to vacate their seats by constitutional provisions. Instead, this particular ruling has emboldened political actors seeking to privatise the state ,undermine governance, creating an atmosphere where impeachment and humiliation of the Governor appear viable strategies for political gain. The general perception in Rivers State is that the president has unleashed his minister against the people of Rivers State. None of these scenarios benefit the people of Rivers State.

Thankfully , the Governor had not acted in disobedience to any court order since appeals were filed in all of the rulings on interlocutory applications in the courts below. Generally speaking, parties are bound by the judgment of Courts, which are or constitute a final determination of matters brought by litigants. Thus, it is wrong or unfair to unnecessarily accuse a party of disobedience to Orders subject to appellate jurisdiction on cases pending before the lower Courts.

When we speak of justice, we reach for the foundation of human existence. Justice is the cornerstone of human togetherness. The rule of law should be a stabilising force, ensuring justice and accountability. However, in this case, it has been manipulated to aggravate the crisis rather than assuage it. The Supreme Court’s ruling has failed to uphold its fundamental duty—to serve justice impartially and safeguard democratic stability. Morally dubious decisions haunt us, and some justices of the Supreme Court involved in the Rivers State case must be dealing with their regrets. Restoring confidence in the Supreme Court requires addressing perceptions of bias and ensuring decisions are grounded in constitutional principles rather than political agendas.

The Supreme Court ruling on Rivers State has left a trail of confusion, economic hardship, and political instability. It has raised serious questions about the Judiciary’s integrity and its mediatory role. There must be mechanisms for judicial accountability and reforms to prevent future rulings that exacerbate crises rather than resolve them to restore public confidence in the legal system. Justice in a democracy should serve the people, not feudal lords or political interests. It should provide stability, not chaos. The Supreme Court must rise above political influences and uphold the principles of fairness, integrity, and constitutionalism. Only then can democracy truly thrive in Rivers State and across Nigeria.

The Rivers state house of assembly has issued a notice of “gross misconduct” on Siminalayi Fubara, govenor of the state, and Ngozi Odu, his deputy.

Martins Wachukwu, special assistant on media to Martin Amaewhule, speaker of the Rivers assembly, relayed the development to TheCable on Monday.

The “gross misconduct” allegation is the first stage of impeachment proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Rivers state has been bogged in a political crisis stemming from the power struggle between Fubara and Nyesom Wike, his predecessor and minister of the federal capital territory (FCT).

The rift led to the ploarisation of the Rivers assembly.

The crisis took a new twist on February 28, when the supreme court upheld a federal high court ruling barring the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the accountant-general of the federation from releasing Rivers state’s statutory monthly allocations.

The court also nullified the local government elections conducted in the state on October 5, 2024.

In response, Fubara pledged to comply with the apex court’s ruling in an attempt to address the state’s political impasse.

He invited the lawmakers to a meeting but the legislators shunned the proposed parley, accusing Fubara of not following due process.

Days later, the governor wrote again to the assembly, requesting a new date to present the 2025 appropriation bill.

About 24 hours after the governor issued the letter, the assembly adjourned plenary indefinitely.

At the peak of the crisis in 2023, an attempt to impeach the governor resulted in the demolition of the Rivers house of assembly.

On Saturday, the faction of the assembly loyal to Wike accused the governor of playing to the gallery.

[TheCable]

The Ogun State Governor, Prince Dapo Abiodun has installed the Onimope of Imope land, Oba Tajudeen Omotayo, as the first Onimope in Ijebu-North Local Government Area of the State.

Governor Abiodun, represented by the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Hon. Ganiyu Hamzat, said the installation and presentation of staff of office was a demonstration of the administration's unrelenting commitment towards ensuring that the State takes its rightful position in the comity of States.

"We realise the fact that traditional institution and its leadership must be properly positioned as it serves as a bridge between the government and the people at the grassroots", he said.

In his goodwill message, Awujale and Paramount Ruler of Ijebu land, Oba Sikiru Adetona, represented by the Orimolusi of Ijebu-Igbo, Oba Lawrence Adebayo, enjoined the people of the area to work together for the development of the land.

Speaking, Chairman, Ijebu-North Local Government, Hon. Omobolaji Odusanya, appealed to the people of the community to work in harmony with the new king for peaceful coexistence, saying, ‘’the job of communal peace and progress calls for everybody's concern’’.

The newly installed Onimope of Imope land, Oba Tajudeen Omotayo, expressed gratitude to the Governor, dignitaries and the entire community, promising that his reign would sustain the peace and bring anticipated development to the community.

In a related development, Governor Abiodun has installed the new Alaparaki of Aparaki, Oba. Prof. Julius Ogunfowora, in Ijebu North-East Local Government Area of Ogun State.

Represented by the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Hon. Ganiyu Hamzat, the Governor noted that it was imperative that traditional institutions and its leadership were properly positioned, as they serve as the bridge between the government and the people at the grassroots.

"This is the reason why we have made it a matter of policy to reposition our traditional institutions by upgrading the deserving Chieftaincy stools in Ogun State", he said.

Governor Abiodun enjoined the monarch to justify the mandate and trust reposed on him by the State Government and the people of Aparaki-Ijebu.

In his acceptance speech, the newly installed monarch, Oba. Prof. Julius Ogunfowora, thanked the State Government for the opportunity given him, saying his reign would not compromise on set standards in the interest of the people of the State, calling on sons and daughters of the land to join hands with him for a successful reign.

Onimope of Imope land, Oba Tajudeen Omotayo, receiving instrument of office from the Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Hon. Ganiyu Hamzat, at his installation as the first Onimope in Ijebu-North local Government Area of the state.

Unarguably, the 10th Senate is now neck-deep into its most sensational defining moments since its inception. Its integrity and by extension, the national assembly, is on trial.

But for the record, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension was a sequel to her unruly conduct on the floor of the Senate.

Again, and so far, the president of the senate, Godswill Akpabio did not sexually harass Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

However, there was indeed a very close relationship between Natasha and Akpabio.

For example, both of them have the same day of birth which could have been marked individually, but Natasha sacrificed her celebration just to honour Akpabio’s event at his Akwa Ibom State.

Furthermore, Natasha was not only a first-timer; she came to the senate about six months after her colleagues were inaugurated, yet she was assigned the chairmanship of a ‘juicy committee’ in addition to being nominated to represent Nigeria at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU. In other words, she stepped into bigger shoes than her legs, though as a deliberate policy, all four female senators head committees.

So in summary, what has thrown the senate into this messy situation is a relationship breakdown between Akpabio and Natasha where the latter is seemingly on a vendetta mission.

Then instructively, the unfortunate escalation of the feud was facilitated by those who ‘love’ Akpabio more than the rest of us. They are responsible for this avoidable attack on our democracy. Their ‘love’ for Akpabio is merely driven by regional sentiments, his office and of course, President Bola Tinubu’s political interest. Impliedly, it is this cupboard love which undermines national interest that has boxed the Senate into this tight corner.

To begin with, there was an outburst during the plenary wherein Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged victimization against Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

Two days later, she took to national television to add that she had been sexually harassed by Godswill Akpabio on two particular occasions. She emphasized that it was her refusal to succumb to the pressure that put her in a disadvantaged position culminating in her removal as chairman of the Committee on Local Content and also reallocation of her seat.

Meanwhile, it was her refusal to take up her newly assigned seat and the refusal of Akpabio to allow her to speak from her old sitting position that triggered the outburst which indeed, violated the priviledges of the senators. The anger and resentment of the senators were to be aggravated by the television outing. She could have exploited all the internal mechanisms to address her concerns rather than exposing the institution to public ridicule.

But as condemnable as her actions are, it was the ensuing reactions that did worse harm.

This is because actions that are lacking in strategy and tact ultimately undermine target goals and objectives, despite the genuineness of the intentions.

In this context, Natasha made an allegation that cast doubt on the integrity of Akpabio, both as a senator and an embodiment of the most critical arm of the federal government. But rather than perceive it as a national concern given that the Senate of the Federal Republic was under attack, it was reduced to a war of attrition between the two senators.

Apart from his wife, those who ‘love’ Akpabio more than the rest of us allowed primordial sentiments to becloud their senses of judgment. The old-fashioned mentality of “we and they” is today elevated to a towering height where no one remembers any longer why she was suspended in the first place.

Within hours after Natasha’s outburst at the senate, an aide of the senate president took to social media to cast aspersions on her, describing her in the most derogatory manner to the extent of writing that Natasha puts on transparent dresses to the senate.

Similarly, a principal officer of the senate variously rose in media defence of the senate president and went all out against Natasha including telling Nigerians how Natasha had six children by six husbands, among others.

Yet again, within hours after Natasha’s television presentations, the senate president’s wife understandably driven by emotion, held a press conference in defence of her husband. Amidst her arguments, she expressed an opinion that Natasha’s husband was certainly not in support of what the wife said about and against Akpabio. This was immediately followed by a protest against Natasha by some women at Uyo, Akpabio’s Akwa Ibom state capital calling her names.

Meanwhile, Natasha had slammed a suit against the office and person of the senate president for defamation by the aide of Akpabio who was also joined as a defendant.

Equally not done by the media defence of her husband, Akpabio.s wife instituted a case of defamation against Natasha.

Then expectedly, Natasha’s husband issued a public statement admitting that Akpabio indeed harassed Natasha sexually and that he had earlier confronted Akpabio on the matter.

It was at this point that a cross-section of Nigerians called for a thorough investigation of the weighty allegations. Raising concerns about the impact of the issue on the image and reputation of the federal legislature, they were unanimous that Akpabio should vacate his office pending the conclusion of the suggested probe.

But, except for ignorance or mischief, this call is overtly untenable because a mere allegation is not sufficient for any leader to step aside. History is replete with cases where officeholders were removed when it became necessary. So, if Akpabio is found wanting, he knows that nothing spares him. Not even those who ‘love’ him more than the rest of us.

Continuing, Akpabio’s spokespersons variously absolved their principal of the allegations, rightly faulted the calls for Akpabio’s resignation and remarkably, hinted that the allegation stemmed from a gang-up against Akpabio because he is from the South-South geo-political zone of the country and also that Natasha was avenging her removal from the ‘juicy’ committee.

Still on national television, former senator Florence Ita-Giwa argued that it was infantile and questionable for Natasha to allege sexual harassment, having gone through the rigours of elections. Does this imply that sexual harassment is either common or non-existent in the Senate?

As for Senator Ireti Kingibe, her only concern was that, of all the four female senators, Natasha has been the only one who has enjoyed the best of priviledges. Whatever this connotes is left to conjecture but it asserts that there was a rosy era for Akpabio and Natasha.

Fast forward! There were protests for and against Akpabio at the gate of the national assembly with the latter receiving a bloody nose from the security operatives.

Meanwhile, the senate had activated its committee on ethics, priviledges and public petition to review Natasha’s disruptive conduct at the plenary.

But following the senate spokesperson’s modest argument that the senate was not investigating the sexual harassment allegations because there was no complaint before the senate, Natasha was to formalise her allegation with a petition which was also referred to the same committee.

It is note-worthy that in all these, Akpabio was loudly silent.

But curiously, even before the submission of Natasha’s petition, the chairman of the committee had publicly and vehemently defended Akpabio even when the committee had yet to look into the allegations.

Then at this point, Senator Akpabio spoke! He denied the allegation of sexual harassment and challenged Natasha to prove him wrong. To deepen this, he allowed Natasha to present her petition. There is no better way to kick-start a fair hearing, even though some of his comments after the suspension tend to negate this!

Instructively again, Natasha had secured a court injunction restraining the committee from taking action with regard to her outburst on the floor of the Senate apparently aware of the ultimate outcome. But the committee bungled the opportunity to rescue Akpabio. Rather than obey the ruling of the court and possibly hear the allegation of sexual harassment, it not only went ahead but shifted its sitting date forward and recommended a six-month suspension for Natasha in addition to dismissing her sexual harassment petition on a technical ground. However, the petition was billed to fail ab initio. Yes! Akpabio was openly disparaged for being “emotional” by allowing the presentation in the first place.

Not deterred, Natasha presented another petition which was endorsed by her constituents. And again, it was referred to the same committee before she was eventually suspended.

Given the barrage of backlash that has continued to trail the suspension, especially relative to the silence on the unruly conduct of Natasha, the senate majority leader issued a statement stressing the core reasons for Natasha’s suspension. Yet he, being a lawyer, was silent on why the Senate was questionably hasty in its action despite even the pendency of a valid court rule.

By this singular act, the senate lost an opportunity to redeem itself and particularly, Akpabio.

Hence, Natasha, being escorted out of the chamber upon suspension, had threatened that “this injustice will not be sustained”. She took her quest for justice to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, thereby further internationalizing the matter. Her co-delegate from Nigeria did not instantly counter Natasha but chose to wait for the close of the session before reading the same statement by the senate majority leader to a non-existent audience.

Then back home, there was a solidarity protest for Akpabio at the United Nations building in Abuja preceded by the second vote of confidence in Akpabio by the senate.

Empirically, it was the actions and inaction of the committee on ethics, priviledges and public petition that truly represent the injustice that “will not be sustained”. After all, “action begets reaction”.

For instance, how the issue of the adjustment of the sitting arrangement was overshadowed by the allegation of sexual harassment has made a mess of the integrity of the Senate and particularly, its president.

Also, apart from the poor conduct of the committee, when seats are rearranged, is it a convention for the affected senators not to be notified formally? If not, then a ‘lover’ has created a war front for Akpabio except the communication was a collective decision.

Again, Natasha, in her outburst on the floor of the Senate, did not say anything about being sexually harassed. No doubt, she might have made up her mind, but logically, her resort to the media platform was in reaction to what the aide of Akpabio wrote about her. Similarly, her husband might not have joined the battle had Akpabio’s wife not challenged him.

Equally, there could not have been protests at the national assembly had Uyo women not fired the first salvo and also, the allegation could not have gained traction in some quarters had there not been insinuation of regionalism and mindless invasion of Natasha’s marital privacy.

So, inferentially once again, the opportunity she was denied to either prove her case or incur further wrath of the senate is now abundantly offered to her at the court of public opinion.

But in the final analysis, it is Akpabio that has a lot to lose. Until this allegation of sexual harassment is trashed formally, the image and reputation or public goodwill that translates to huge political capital at the appropriate time will continue to elude him. It is not about defending him with desperation but about enhancing opportunities to establish his innocence. Votes of confidence, protests and advocacies do not, and cannot constitute proof of innocence. Those concerned should understand that attacking individuals and their comments or offending the sensibilities of dissenting voices only aggravates issues otherwise this is certainly how not to love Akpabio.

Egbo is a parliamentary affairs analyst.