Natasha vs Akpabio: Senate deputy chief whip tackles Saraki

The Senate Deputy Chief Whip, Senator Onyekachi Peter Nwebonyi, has criticized Dr. Abubakar Bukola Saraki’s attempt to draw parallels between his own past case and the current allegations by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

Nwebonyi described Saraki’s argument as “fundamentally flawed,” highlighting the differences between the two situations.

In Saraki’s case, according to Onyekachi Nwebonyi, the issue revolved around his official duties as Senate President, specifically an accusation concerning the importation of an official vehicle.

In contrast, the current allegations against Akpabio, he said, are “personal, unsubstantiated, and conveniently timed accusations” of sexual harassment.

Nwebonyi emphasized that accepting Saraki’s argument would set a “dangerous precedent” where anyone can make unsubstantiated allegations and expect the Senate to halt proceedings.

He stated, “This is not just about Akpabio; it is about protecting the institution of the Senate from manipulation and blackmail.”

The deputy chief whip also pointed out that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the accuser, has a history of making “reckless and false allegations” against prominent figures. He noted that her accusations always follow the same pattern: “wild claims, media noise, and no evidence.”

Nwebonyi questioned why Akpoti-Uduaghan never brought her complaint to the Senate floor, despite claiming her motion on Ajaokuta Steel was ignored. He argued that as a Senator, she should know that the Senate only responds to issues formally raised within its chambers, not through media interviews.

The correct course of action, according to Nwebonyi, is for Akpoti-Uduaghan to answer to the Senate Ethics Committee for her misconduct and, if necessary, file a case in the appropriate legal forum.

He concluded, “Let due process prevail! The Senate must stay focused, maintain order, and refuse to be blackmailed into legitimizing what is clearly an opportunistic and diversionary falsehood.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *