Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, one of only four women in Nigeria's 109-member Senate, was recently suspended for six months following altercations with Senate President Godswill Akpabio. She was repeatedly interrupted and ultimately silenced when attempting to contribute to debates during Senate proceedings. The suspension was imposed rapidly, with limited investigation or opportunity for defense and it included severe penalties; the withdrawal of her salary, removal of security details, and denial of access to her office. Her situation transcends individual circumstances to reveal systemic gender inequities embedded within legislative frameworks. The recent suspension has brought to light significant gaps in Nigeria's parliamentary rules that may disproportionately affect female lawmakers especially when compared to more gender-inclusive systems like those in the United States.
This harsh response to a female senator from an underrepresented group raises critical questions about the structural fairness of Nigeria's Senate procedures: Would a male senator face identical treatment under similar circumstances? Do the Senate Standing Orders provide equal protections to all senators regardless of gender? And most importantly, how might procedural rules be reformed to ensure gender equity? By examining this incident through a comparative lens, analyzing the Senate rules of Nigeria and the United States, we gain crucial insights into how procedural frameworks either perpetuate or combat gender discrimination in legislative bodies.
The Akpabio-Saraki Incident: Different Rules for Male Senators
In stark contrast stands the 2018 confrontation between then-Senator Godswill Akpabio (now Senate President) and then-Senate President Bukola Saraki. During a heated plenary session following Akpabio's defection from the People's Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Akpabio rose to speak, claiming he was being marginalized in seating arrangements. The exchange became confrontational, with Akpabio directly challenging Saraki's authority and making pointed accusations about unfair treatment. Despite the disruption to Senate proceedings and the direct challenge to the Senate President's authority, the outcome was dramatically different. It is important to note that no formal suspension was imposed on Akpabio, no withdrawal of privileges or access occurred, the matter was largely resolved through political negotiation, Akpabio continued serving without interruption and the incident was treated as normal political friction.
When examined side by side, these two incidents reveal troubling patterns of gender-based double standards in the application of Nigeria's Senate rules:
1. Differential Tolerance for Challenging Authority
Male Senator (Akpabio):
· Direct challenges to the Senate President were treated as normal political discourse
· Confrontational behavior was tolerated as part of legislative deliberation
· The incident was framed as a legitimate expression of grievance
Female Senator (Akpoti-Uduaghan):
· Similar challenges were characterized as unacceptable breaches of decorum
· Confrontational responses were deemed worthy of severe sanctions
· The incident was framed as insubordination requiring punishment
2. Disproportionate Disciplinary Responses
Male Senator (Akpabio):
· No formal suspension process was initiated
· Political resolution was prioritized over punitive measures
· The incident was largely treated as a political rather than disciplinary matter
Female Senator (Akpoti-Uduaghan):
· Immediate formal suspension for six months
· Maximum penalties applied, including financial sanctions
· The incident was treated primarily as a disciplinary matter requiring punishment
3. Differential Impact on Constituent Representation
Male Senator (Akpabio):
· Constituents continued to have representation despite their senator's confrontation
· No interruption in legislative service occurred
· The senator's voice remained present in legislative debates
Female Senator (Akpoti-Uduaghan):
· Constituents effectively lost representation for six months
· Complete interruption of legislative service was imposed
· One of the few female voices in the Senate was silenced
4. Inconsistent Application of Standing Orders
The Senate Standing Orders provide considerable discretion to the Senate President regarding what constitutes disorderly conduct and appropriate responses. The dramatically different outcomes in these two comparable incidents suggest this discretion is applied with gender bias:
· The same rules that allowed Akpabio to continue serving despite his confrontation with Saraki were used to suspend Akpoti-Uduaghan
· The Standing Orders' lack of explicit gender protections enabled selective enforcement
· The broad discretionary powers granted to the Senate President were applied inconsistently across gender lines
Structural Inequities Revealed
The disparate treatment across these two incidents reveals several structural problems in Nigeria's Senate procedures:
1. Gendered Standards of Decorum
The Senate Standing Orders contain subjective standards for appropriate behavior that are applied differently based on gender. What is characterized as "robust debate" when performed by male senators becomes "unacceptable conduct" when exhibited by female senators.
2. Discretionary Power Without Accountability
The broad discretion granted to Senate leadership in interpreting and applying rules creates opportunities for bias. Without explicit protections against discriminatory application, this discretion enables harsher treatment of underrepresented groups.
3. The Representation Paradox
· Their extreme underrepresentation (less than 4%) makes the women’s voices essential for diversity of perspective
· The underrepresentation leaves them vulnerable to selective rule enforcement
· When suspended, the already minimal female representation decreases further(In this case from the abysmally low 4 to 3)
· This weakened position makes challenging unfair treatment even more difficult
4. Precedent Without Principle
The Senate's handling of disciplinary matters appears guided more by precedent than principle. Historical leniency toward confrontational male senators establishes a pattern that should extend to all senators yet this precedent is selectively ignored when female senators engage in similar behavior.
A comparative lens analyzing the Senate rules of Nigeria and the United States
1. Due Process in Disciplinary Actions
United States Senate:
a) The U.S. Senate employs a structured, deliberate process for member discipline
b) The Senate Ethics Committee, comprising equal numbers from both major parties, conducts thorough investigations
c) Accused senators are guaranteed the right to present their defense
d) Multiple stages of review exist before serious sanctions are imposed
e) Sanctions require a full Senate vote with supermajority requirements for expulsion
Nigerian Senate:
a) The Nigerian Standing Orders permit swift disciplinary action with fewer procedural safeguards
b) There appears to be no equivalent to the Ethics Committee with bipartisan representation
c) The Senate President wields considerable discretionary power in disciplinary matters
d) Limited formal opportunities exist for accused senators to present their defense
e) Suspensions can occur through a simple majority vote, often along party lines
In Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan's case, the speed of her suspension and the severity of accompanying sanctions (including financial penalties) suggest a lack of robust due process protections that might have ensured fair treatment regardless of gender.
2. Gender-Sensitive Language and Explicit Protections
United States Senate:
a) U.S. Senate rules have evolved to use gender-neutral language
b) Standing Rules include provisions against discrimination and harassment
c) The Congressional Accountability Act explicitly extends workplace protections to legislative branch employees
d) Ethics rules specifically prohibit conduct that might bring the Senate into "dishonor or disrepute," including sexist behavior
Nigerian Senate:
a) The Nigerian Senate Standing Orders lack explicit gender protections
b) The document frequently uses male pronouns throughout
c) No specific provisions address gender-based harassment or discrimination
d) Absence of clear rules regarding equitable treatment across gender lines
This lack of explicit protections in the Nigerian Senate's rules creates a vacuum where gender-based discrimination might occur without formal recourse, potentially affecting senators like Akpoti-Uduaghan who already face challenges as part of a small minority of women.
3. Power Distribution and Checks on Authority
United States Senate:
a) Power is relatively distributed across party leadership, committee chairs, and rank-and-file senators
b) The Senate Majority Leader has significant but not absolute control over proceedings
c) Procedural rules allow minority members to be heard through various mechanisms
d) Filibuster rules (though evolving) provide some protection for minority viewpoints
e) Committee assignments follow a more structured and transparent process
Nigerian Senate:
a) The Senate President holds substantial concentrated power over proceedings
b) Standing Orders grant the presiding officer broad discretion in recognizing speakers
c) Limited formal mechanisms exist for senators to challenge the chair's rulings
d) Committee assignments often reflect political patronage rather than merit or equity considerations
In the case of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, this power imbalance was evident when Senate President Akpabio reportedly used his procedural authority to limit her participation in debates. Without robust checks on this authority, female senators already underrepresented can be effectively silenced.
5. Representation and Institutional Support
United States Senate:
a) Women comprise 24% of the current U.S. Senate (24 out of 100 members)
b) The Senate Women's Caucus provides institutional support for female senators
c) Staff diversity policies encourage gender balance in hiring practices
d) Multiple women have held leadership positions, normalizing female authority
Nigerian Senate:
a) Women represent less than 4% of the Nigerian Senate (4 out of 109 members)
b) No formal women's caucus or equivalent support structure exists
c) Limited institutional resources specifically address gender equity concerns
d) Few women have held leadership positions, reinforcing male-dominated norms
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan's experience must be viewed within this context of severe underrepresentation, where the absence of critical mass makes it difficult for female senators to challenge biased treatment effectively.
Key Gaps in Nigeria's Senate Standing Orders
Based on the comparative analysis and Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan's case, several critical gaps emerge in Nigeria's Senate Standing Orders:
1. Absence of Gender-Specific Protections: Unlike the U.S. Senate, Nigeria's rules lack explicit provisions against gender-based discrimination or harassment.
2. Insufficient Due Process Safeguards: The Standing Orders permit rapid disciplinary action without adequate investigation or defense opportunities.
3. Concentrated Authority: Excessive power in the hands of the Senate President creates vulnerability for members from underrepresented groups.
4. Limited Recourse for Unfair Treatment: The rules provide few formal mechanisms to appeal or challenge potentially biased decisions.
5. Inadequate Transparency Requirements: The lack of mandatory disclosure around disciplinary proceedings enables potential discrimination to remain hidden.
Policy Recommendations
To address these gaps and create a more gender-equitable legislative environment, the following reforms to Nigeria's Senate Standing Orders should be considered:
a) Amend Standing Orders to explicitly prohibit gender-based discrimination
b) Establish clear, objective standards for what constitutes disruptive behavior
c) Apply uniform disciplinary responses regardless of gender
d) Create formal documentation requirements for all disciplinary actions
e) Establish a review mechanism comparing current disciplinary measures with historical precedents
f) Require written justification when current sanctions deviate from historical patterns
g) Establish a gender-balanced Ethics Committee to review all proposed suspensions
h) Create appeal processes for disciplinary decisions
Conclusion: Beyond Individual Incidents
The stark contrast between the treatment of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and former Senator Akpabio provides compelling evidence that Nigeria's Senate procedures are not applied equally across gender lines. What appears to be a neutral set of rules reveals itself, through inconsistent application, to be a mechanism that perpetuates gender inequality. This analysis confirms that the harsh response to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot be explained solely by the nature of her actions as demonstrated by the significantly more lenient treatment afforded to male senators in comparable circumstances. Rather, it reveals a troubling pattern of structural bias that requires urgent reform.
Nigeria's Senate Standing Orders, as currently written and applied, fail to provide equal protections to all senators regardless of gender. Until this fundamental inequity is addressed through concrete procedural reforms, female senators will continue to face a playing field that is not merely uneven but systematically biased against their full and equal participation in Nigeria's democracy.