Inside The Controversy: Senate Leader Explains Natasha’s Suspension Was Not Over Akpabio Allegation

Opeyemi explained that the clash between Natasha and Akpabio began in February when she refused to accept a new Senate position assigned to her. Following this, she made public sexual misconduct allegations against Akpabio. On March 6, 2025, the Senate suspended her for six months, which included the withdrawal of her security details and other penalties.

The suspension has sparked controversy among Nigerians, with some media outlets circulating misleading narratives. In response, Opeyemi, representing Ekiti Central Senatorial District, issued a statement on Saturday, refuting these false claims and emphasizing that Natasha’s suspension was based solely on her misconduct, blatant disregard for the Senate Standing Orders 2023, and gross indiscipline.

He explained that the decision to suspend Natasha was made by the full Senate following a report from Senator Neda Imaseun, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions. The report found Natasha guilty of violating Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the Senate Rules.

Opeyemi urged the public and media to disregard any misleading reports and to always seek the truth before spreading politically motivated narratives.

The statement read: “The Authority of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria categorically rejects the deliberate misinformation and false narratives circulating regarding Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan’s six-month suspension.

“It must be clearly stated that Senator Uduaghan was suspended solely for her persistent misconduct, disregard for the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (As Amended), and gross indiscipline—nothing more, nothing less.

“We have noted that some media reports are falsely suggesting that Senator Uduaghan’s suspension was due to allegations of sexual harassment. This is completely untrue, misleading, and a deliberate distortion of the facts. If Senator Uduaghan had followed the Senate’s guiding principles, her petition would have been treated based on merit. Unfortunately, she repeatedly violated the institution’s established practices.

“The disciplinary action was a direct response to her continued violations of legislative decorum, including her refusal to sit in her assigned seat during the plenary on February 25, 2025, despite repeated requests from the Minority Leader and other senior Senators—an act of open defiance and disorderly conduct.