Natasha: NASS Now Using Suspension As Instrument Of Terror BY ABDUL MAHMUD
Abdul Mahmud is a human rights lawyer, activist, and president of the Public Interest Lawyers League (PILL).
He is also the former Deputy National Chairman of the Campaign for Democracy (CD) and former Secretary, of Democratic Alternative.
In this encounter, he speaks on the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, power play and abuse of privileges at the Senate, among other issues
What is your take on the suspension of Senator Natasha which has generated controversy?
For a law-making body such as the Senate to have taken the decision that it took within two days after a matter was referred to the Ethics and Public Petitions Committee does not in any way show seriousness. It does not in any way cast our law-making body as a body that has fidelity to our laws. Why do I say this? Let’s separate the two issues. One is about Order 10 or 11 of the Standing Orders of the Senate. And the other issue is Order 40, Rule 4 of the Standing Orders of the Senate. Order 11 talks about and regulates when a senator can stand in the hallowed chambers and express his or her view on an issue of privilege. This is where I differ from members of the Senate. The orders and rules of the Senate are not cast in stone. As a matter of fact, if you look at the rules themselves, the rules state that rules can be set aside temporarily on the basis of two-third votes. Was that done on Monday when the issue of re-allocation of seats came up? Not to my mind. It wasn’t done.
Two, if you look at Order 40, Rule 4, which talks about petitions, generally, if you look at the marginal note, that blank space on the right-hand side, if you look at the rules of the Senate, it talks about petitions. And if you read all through, what the rules envisage are petitions by Nigerian citizens. The rules of the Senate do not envisage that a member of the Senate will file a petition against another member of the Senate. So, we should not conflate the issues. Then, let’s go back to the question of injustice, and this is where I think we need to provide clarity. What was referred to the Ethics Committee were the shenanigans that happened on Monday, you know, the previous Monday. And when the committee chose to sit, there was already an injunction against the Senate and the Ethics Committee.
A proper law-making body, an institution that respects the rule of law, should have suspended its proceedings and surrendered its entire proceedings and petitions to the court to adjudicate. They did not do that. Again, the principle of audi alteram partem (fair hearing) did not come into play. So, on what basis did Senator Neda Imaseun’s committee reach the conclusion that it reached when it chose to suspend Senator Natasha? And two, this is where I have a problem with the approach of Senator Natasha. I’m taking the other aspect of the saga, the question of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a crime. It goes beyond the purview of the Ethics Committee of the Senate. As a matter of fact, under our principle of law, enunciated by the Supreme Court far back in 1985 in a judgment.
The basis of Section 46 of the Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act, which was a law passed by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan shortly before he left office in 2015 talks about the conduct of sexual nature. That is a matter that, maybe, the courts and law enforcement agencies should be handling. Natasha should get in touch with her lawyers. References were made to conversations around the presence of Senate Guest House in Abuja, which falls within the purview of Section 285 of the Penal Code. The Penal Code is applicable in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and the 19 Northern states. And the Penal Code talks about indecent aggression upon the person.
So, you think this is far beyond the purview of what the legislature should be handling?
Yes. This is far beyond the purview of the Ethics Committee of the Senate. She should have written to the police at one level to inquire into the circumstances in which this whole saga arose around sexual harassment. And two, there’s also a limb to her accusation, which revolves around official misconduct. She should also write the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). ICPC is mandated to look at official misconduct. And when all of this is done, and these bodies find some truth, on the basis of their investigation, the matter can start formally at the court.
How will you react to the gravity of the sanctions. I mean, six months, and then you’re also looking at withdrawal of salaries. She is not to appear anywhere near the Senate complex, introducing or making an attempt to introduce herself as a senator representing the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That being said, how does this also perhaps create an ambiguity of representation for her people in this period? And could that be something she should also take to the court?
The Senate has no power to suspend a member for more than 14 days. The Senate has no power to have suspended Senator Natasha beyond 14 days. The circumstances in which she was suspended does not even meet the test. And two, it does not even meet the requirements of our laws. But you raised an important point, and this in itself implies the ambiguity of representation. She was sent to Abuja to represent over a million people in her constituency in Kogi Central. If she had fallen foul of the rules, the orders, internal laws of the Senate, they must exercise their powers in such a way that the exercise sits with our laws. But the way her suspension was rushed shows that her fate was predetermined. And don’t forget, in the course of the debate in the Senate the man who later sat on the panel, on the Ethics Committee, that suspended her, told the world that her petition was dead on arrival before even starting the conviction. And one cannot be a judge in the matter in which he has interest.
This is talking about the President of the Senate, who sat there and said he has never been known to have harassed any woman. Does he think that is enough to make such an address from there, understanding that the matter is also in court? What complicates the position of the President of the Senate on whatever he says on this matter is his refusal to pay some fidelity to principles of law that we know. He was conflicted by the allegations made by Natasha. Let’s assume that when the matter first came up that Monday, because of the fracas that ensued in the House, he was not in the best of mind to have grappled with this principle. But when Natasha came a day later or thereabout to resubmit the petition, what I expected the President of the Senate to do, as a lawyer, was to step aside. He ought not to have admitted the petition. All he ought to have done was, having recognised Natasha and given the opportunity to speak, he would have told members of his hallowed chambers that he was stepping aside for the Deputy Senate President to oversee that proceeding on the submission of the petition and the admission of the petition because the substance of the petition touches on his person and on his integrity and, in a way, interrogates his own position as President of the Senate. He has not done that. Look, I’m trying to be charitable here because people are destroying our state institutions and it is unfortunate that a lawyer who knows the legal principle, nemo judex in sua causa, that no man can be judge in his own case, sat tight.
Does that mean that the Senate doesn’t necessarily have to obey the court? Or what does the Constitution or the law say on this issue?
No institution is above the law in our country. No institution is above the Constitution. We are talking of the issue of fundamental right to fair hearing here, which is protected by Section 36 of our Constitution. And don’t forget that the Constitution that we are operating now was a military decree passed into what we have by this same Senate, which is refusing to pay fidelity to the Constitution. For me, it’s grave for anybody not to contemplate. But on the wider issue, I’m even more worried by the illogic that we now find in the public space. You find former senators saying that once you become a senator, you are no longer subject to sexual harassment. You have a former senator pushing the illogical cheapness that it is cheap for a senator to say that she’s been sexually harassed. And then what about ageism? That sometimes the cheapness arises from the way women present themselves.
Why not mention ageism by such a senator? These statements are ludicrous. Coming from Senator Florence Ita-Giwa, coming from Senator Oluremi Tinubu. I find these statements shocking. What they are doing is distorting the side of women’s political action. We may not see the effects today, but in times to come, you will see Nigerian women chuckling into their homes and making that biblical reference of ‘to your tents oh Israel’. I would have thought that for a senator who comes from the opposition, there would have been a whip line drawn by the opposition party. Nothing of such was done. In fact, the reference to the Ethics Committee was seconded by Senator Abba Moro, who is the leader of the opposition in the Senate. So it tells you that party oppositional politics has collapsed in the legislative bodies of our country — House of Reps and Senate. And two, those we elect and send to Abuja are not there to represent the collective interests of their constituents.
Don’t you think this instrument of suspension is now a weapon by the legislature to silence opposition like what happened to Senator Ali Ndume who represents Borno South and if you look at what has happened to a number of senators; they are thrown out temporarily, out of the chambers. Their salaries are suspended, including salaries of their aides and all that. And they are made to apologise before they are subsequently admitted to the chambers. What can you say about this?
When these people come back, taking a track of their legislative activities, we no longer hear them speak. In fact, I have not heard Ndume’s voice. Above the cacophony of what we see and hear, I have not heard his voice. I have not heard of Ningi in the Senate. So for me, it is an instrument of terror, deployed by the leadership of our National Assembly, to halt those who do not fall in line. It is even worse for youngsters like Natasha, who come with a different kind of politics, who are unbridled by the politics of governance in our country, who try to merge the advocacy of the streets like a political reformer.
Looking at the number of senators that signed or said one thing or the other to support the suspension of Natasha, it looks like the majority of the lawmakers are not happy with what she has done, what is your take on this?
Well, if they are unhappy, their unhappiness is not borne out of the politics of our advocacy. It is borne out of what I describe as biological politics. And I will firm up my position on the basis of a remark made by a Senator of the Federal Republic, who tried to cast aspersion on the character and reputation of Natasha, by alleging that this woman has six children for six men. And what does that have to do with anything or the matter at hand? I find it extremely ridiculous that a sitting senator can make such a remark on the character and reputation of another sitting senator. But, he also raises the point, can this man, you know, really beat his chest and say that I’ve kept fidelity to my relationship. I know of three sitting senators who have baby mamas outside their marriages here in Abuja. But then it is not my business to inquire into their private lives. It really shouldn’t be anybody’s business.
A scholar, Judith Butler, wrote extensively on the performativity of the woman’s body. The woman owns her body and controls it. It is not your business if she begets six children or has five baby daddies. But then it shows the depths, right to the bottom, that our Senate has plunged into and perhaps also the overbearing nature of the patriarchy at the level of the legislature. I wrote a piece which has gone viral on Ita-Giwa’s flawed perspective. And I argued that because our society is patriarchal driven and our structure is masculinist and patriarchal in nature, the dynamics of power creates an unequal relationship between a man and a woman. And once a woman raises an allegation, the responsibility of the patriarchal structure is to silence that woman.
It happened just last November here when a Private in Nigerian Army, Ruth Ogunleye, accused a General and two Colonels of sexual harassment. What happened? She was dismissed from the army. The question I ask, do our institutions have policy on sexual harassment? If they do, they’ll have more considerate ways of approaching these allegations. And the same question I ask the Senate. Yes, the number of women are few. But you also have women who work for the National Assembly. Is there a policy, public policy on sexual harassment in the National Assembly? We do not. But I think the allegation of Natasha is important because we are dealing with two senators here. In the context of preferential politics, they are equal. Two equal senators in the chambers of the Senate of the National Assembly.
So what do you think is going to happen from here? Do you think that Natasha should just go cool off, serve six months and come back? Or write an apology as they say?
If I were her, I would increase the stakes, write to the police and ICPC, even if we know that both institutions are weak. The purpose for which some of us human rights lawyers go to court is really not to win because we know we’ll not get justice. But we do this to test the efficacy and effectiveness of our law and of our institutions. She should approach both institutions.
As a matter of fact, under Section 24 of the Police Act, the police ought not to wait for any petition to be written to them. We have an Inspector General of Police who is following this saga and he has the power to invite the President of the Senate to come and answer allegations that have been made against him in the public space. The President of the Senate does not have any immunity. The immunity begins and ends within the precincts of the legal chamber.
Read also:
Senate Passes Vote Of Confidence On Akpabio
Court Adjourns Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Suit Against Senate To March 25
Senate Suspends Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for Six Months Over Rule Violation
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Abdul Mahmud is a human rights lawyer, activist and president of Public Interest Lawyers League (PILL).
Culled from THE SUN
