Sen Onyekachi Peter: The Difference is Clear Protecting the Senate from Political Manipulation, Not Rewarding Falsehood.

Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki’s appeal for transparency and institutional protection is noted, but his attempt to draw a parallel between his own past case and the current false allegations against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is fundamentally flawed.

The two situations are worlds apart in context, substance, and motivation.In Saraki’s case, the matter revolved around his official duties as Senate President—specifically, an accusation concerning the importation of an official vehicle.

The claim was factually incorrect, and Saraki, knowing this, subjected himself to scrutiny to clear his name. It was an administrative and procedural issue directly tied to his office, and a swift resolution through the Senate Ethics Committee restored confidence in the institution.

In contrast, what we have before us today is a case of personal, unsubstantiated, and conveniently timed accusations—claims of sexual harassment that supposedly took place over a year ago but surfaced only after the accuser was summoned for disciplinary action.

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, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from legitimate disciplinary proceedings.

If we take Saraki’s argument to its logical conclusion, we would be establishing a dangerous precedent—one where any gold digger or habitual liar can throw out an unsubstantiated allegation and expect the Senate to come to a halt while they are entertained.

This is not just about Akpabio; it is about protecting the institution of the Senate from manipulation and blackmail.It is well known that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has a history of making reckless and false allegations of sexual harassment against prominent figures, including Reno Omokri, Dino Melaye, and Yahaya Bello.

These accusations always follow the same pattern: wild claims, media noise, and no evidence. Now, the same strategy is being deployed against the Senate President, not because she is seeking justice, but because she is desperately avoiding accountability for her own actions.Even more telling is the fact that she never brought this complaint to the floor of the Senate—not even when she claimed that her motion on Ajaokuta Steel was ignored despite being listed on the Order Paper.

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. The Senate only responds to and investigates issues formally raised within its chambers, not in a television interview.

If she believes that addressing her grievances on TV is more effective than following due process in the Senate, then kudos to her. However, as a Senator, she should know better. The Senate is moved by reason and laws, not sentiments and drama, and those who seek redress must engage the institution through its established procedures, not through media grandstanding.

Furthermore, it is critical to note that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was appointed as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Local Content on the 21st of November 2023 before the alleged sexual harassment incident in Ikot Ekpene.

If she had truly been a victim, why would the Senate leadership, under the same Akpabio she now accuses, assign her such a critical leadership role? This glaring contradiction exposes her claims for what they truly are: a politically motivated and diversionary stunt.Saraki rightly speaks about protecting the Senate’s integrity, but true protection of the institution means ensuring that its processes are not hijacked by baseless, opportunistic claims.

If Natasha has any real grievance about events that occurred outside the Senate, let her pursue those through the appropriate legal channels—not use the Red Chamber and the media as a stage for diversionary theatrics.Let Due Process Prevail!The correct course of action is clear:

1. Natasha should first answer to the Senate Ethics Committee for her misconduct. 2. If she believes she has a valid sexual harassment claim, she should file a case in the appropriate legal forum, not use the Senate and the media as a shield against accountability.

3. The Senate must resist the temptation to legitimize a distraction campaign designed to avoid legitimate scrutiny.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.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 and diversionary falsehood.