The Nigerian Senate’s decision to swiftly suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan over sexual harassment allegations against the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, seems partly motivated by the need to quell the immense public interest and media frenzy the case has generated. Ironically, rather than reducing attention, the suspension has only intensified intrigue, suspense, and public spectacle, turning the entire situation into a dramatic spectacle.
While some quarters approve of the suspension, arguing that it helps refocus national attention on more pressing matters, emerging controversies regarding the legality and morality of the Senate’s actions have made this approval seem premature. Even Akpabio himself acknowledged this in his lamentation over how Nigerians have recently debated Senate matters with the same fervor as football arguments about Ronaldo and Messi. The Senate has since attempted to clarify that Natasha’s suspension was not due to the sexual harassment case, yet the controversy remains.
Legal minds and analysts have raised concerns about the Senate’s authority to suspend a senator, considering it is not responsible for her appointment in the first place. There are also moral dilemmas surrounding the impact of this decision on Natasha’s constituency, which is now left without representation, as well as concerns about the duration of the suspension. However, beyond these legal and procedural questions, I find the moral issues surrounding Natasha’s own actions to be even more compelling.
This entire episode began with an emotional reaction over a change in Natasha’s seating position—an act she perceived as a deliberate slight by the Senate President. What initially seemed like a minor issue soon escalated into accusations of sexual harassment made on live television.
My decision to revisit this issue, despite having previously shared my perspective, is fueled by the sustained public hype and the troubling trend of framing every form of attention-seeking as a noble act of strength. A growing number of influential women and emerging celebrities are setting a precedent where calling out any and every perceived slight is seen as a mark of empowerment. This trend, rather than promoting true strength, encourages a culture of endless public grievances, often exposing weaknesses rather than demonstrating resilience.
It is crucial to challenge this mindset and scrutinize its implications. True strength is not found in the relentless pursuit of exposing or reporting every real or perceived transgression—every suspicious glance, every ambiguous comment, every moment of moral lapse. A society that prioritizes public condemnation over forgiveness, understanding, and second chances risks fostering an environment of fear, division, and perpetual outrage. While accountability is important, it should not come at the cost of fairness, balance, and the opportunity for personal growth and redemption.
Consider Reno Omokri, a social media influencer who previously faced similar allegations from Natasha. In his case, the court ruled in his favor and even awarded him damages. Given the legal consequences of false allegations, it is unlikely that he would have spoken out so confidently if he were guilty. Additionally, there have been numerous observations regarding Natasha’s temperament, with critics pointing to issues of emotional intelligence and a tendency toward reactionary behavior.
Strength has never been measured solely by one’s ability to seek vengeance or to destroy reputations. True power lies in the capacity to show restraint, to extend grace, and to allow room for redemption. Seeking maximum punishment and public disgrace for acts rooted in suspicion—without clear evidence of harm or real danger—does not make one strong; it reflects a desire for retribution rather than justice. Punishment should be proportionate, and justice should consider both intent and impact. Destroying an individual’s career and reputation without irrefutable proof not only harms the accused but also affects countless innocent lives connected to them.
While figures like Akpabio may elicit less sympathy due to their positions of power, Natasha too, despite being a woman, deserves less sympathy in this case—not because of her gender but because of the apparent malice in her approach. In seeking what she calls justice, she appears to have prioritized personal vindication over fairness without considering the broader consequences of her actions. Forgiveness and second chances should not be dismissed in favor of absolute punishment, especially when the alleged offense is not accompanied by a clear and immediate threat or harm.
It is also worth noting that, if Natasha can recover from her six-month suspension, an indictment against Akpabio based on weak or superficial claims would leave him with no chance of recovery—potentially leading to resignation or even a prison sentence.
Imagine if every woman in the world were to publicly report every comment on their appearance, every compliment, or every instance of romantic interest as sexual harassment. Would there still be room for tolerance and peace? While sexual harassment is a serious issue that must not be trivialized, there must also be a distinction between genuine misconduct and social interactions that, in many contexts, have been normalized.
By definition, sexual harassment involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. This includes unwanted touching, explicit remarks, coercion, and behavior that creates a hostile environment. However, the current discourse on harassment often disregards the need for nuance, failing to differentiate between genuine harm and subjective perceptions of offense.
Moral decision-making should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy (respecting individual rights), beneficence (acting with kindness and promoting well-being), non-maleficence (avoiding unnecessary harm), and justice (ensuring fairness and impartiality). It also requires fidelity (keeping promises, being truthful), veracity (honest communication), and responsibility for one’s actions. However, Natasha’s approach lacks the spirit of compassion, forgiveness, moderation, or compelling evidence necessary to justify her demand for maximum punishment. Her stance ignores the potential harm inflicted on innocent bystanders and disregards the evolving social norms that have made casual physical gestures like handshakes or friendly greetings more acceptable in many circles.
Therefore, while Natasha and others like her deserve recognition for their ambition, courage, and willingness to challenge authority, there is also a need for moderation. True leadership and strength are not defined by how loudly one calls for punishment but by the wisdom to balance justice with empathy. Forgiveness, emotional intelligence, and a consideration of broader consequences must be central to any moral or legal pursuit.
bagudum75@gmail.com
