The Senate Seat Controversy: Did Senator Natasha Goofed This Time?
The Senate plenary on Thursday took a dramatic turn as tensions flared over the seat arrangement, culminating in a heated exchange between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Senate leadership.
This incident has sparked widespread discussions about the boundaries of parliamentary decorum and the importance of upholding the Senate’s standing orders. While it is easy to be swayed by emotions, a closer look at the events reveals that Natasha’s actions went against the very essence of parliamentary order.
According to reports from several sources, the controversy unfolded when Senator Natasha’s seat was relocated at the commencement of the session. While this was a routine procedural adjustment, she was said to have refused to comply with the change. The Chief Whip, Senator Tahir Monguno, raised a point of order to justify the reassignment of seats, citing sections of the Senate rule book, popularly called “the Red Book”. Monguno reports had it argued that the changes were necessary due to opposition members shifting to the majority wing, and that such reassignments were within the Senate President’s constitutional prerogative.
Monguno went further to stress that failure to comply with the new seating arrangements could lead to penalties, including the possibility of being barred from participating in discussions on the Senate floor. Senator Godswill Akpabio, the Senate President, upheld the decision, but when Senator Natasha attempted to speak, she was denied recognition. The reason? She was not seated in her newly assigned position.
Unwilling to back down, Senator Natasha voiced her protest, directly confronting the Senate President, declaring, “I don’t care if I am silent, I am not afraid of you. You have denied me my privilege.” Her bold defiance intensified the drama in the Senate, with the Senate President even ordering her removal from the chamber.
The intervention of various lawmakers eventually calmed the situation, but Natasha remained steadfast in her refusal to move.
The Constitutional Context: Clarifying the Senate President’s Authority
The events that transpired on Thursday warrant a deeper understanding of the Senate’s rules and the authority vested in the Senate President. According to the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended), the Senate President holds the power to regulate the seating arrangements within the chamber. Section 2(2) of the Orders clearly states that it is the Senate President’s discretion to assign or reassign seats to ensure the smooth functioning of the chamber, while Section 11(3) further justifies this action in light of political realignments, such as opposition members defecting to the majority wing.
The seating adjustments were not arbitrary but were in response to such realignments. Moreover, the reorganization of seats is a practice that has precedence in parliamentary proceedings, and it was not directed at Senator Natasha alone, but affected several senators.
The Senate Standing Orders explicitly require that senators must occupy their designated seats in order to be recognized for contributions to debates (Section 10(2)). By refusing to comply with her reassigned seat, Senator Natasha violated this rule, and her subsequent attempts to speak from a seat that was no longer hers warranted her loss of recognition.
Section 56(1) allows the Senate President to rule any senator out of order if they breach procedural guidelines, and in this case, Senator Natasha’s actions justified such a ruling.
Read Also:
Also, the Senate President is empowered to enforce order in the chamber. According to Section 56(3), senators who disregard the directives of the Senate President can be asked to leave the chamber, and Section 56(5) allows for the Sergeant-at-Arms to restore decorum. Senator Natasha’s vocal defiance, rather than following due process, necessitated these actions.
It is easy to get swept up in the emotions of the moment, particularly when political figures are involved. But we must acknowledge the necessity of discipline and order within the Senate. The Senate is a place of laws, rules, and procedures, all of which exist to ensure fairness and proper functioning. In this context, Senator Natasha’s refusal to comply with the seat reassignment cannot be justified.
Yes, many of us remember the controversial remarks made by Senate President Akpabio towards Natasha during a plenary session last July, when he publicly reprimanded her for speaking without permission, claiming the Senate floor was not a “night club.” The harshness of Akpabio’s words stirred outrage and forced him to issue a public apology. Yet, while Akpabio’s comments were demeaning and wrong, this time, the tables are turned. Natasha’s defiance of parliamentary order and her failure to respect the Senate’s standing orders are a clear violation of the rules, and that should not be overlooked.
The Senate is often referred to as the “hallowed chamber” because of the traditions and rules that govern it. Senators are expected to act in accordance with these traditions, and Natasha’s actions undermined that expectation. The Senate President’s decision to enforce the seat reassignment was entirely within his constitutional rights, and it was aimed at maintaining order and upholding the integrity of the chamber.
Interestingly, this is not the first time a Senate leader has clashed over seat arrangements. In 2018, a similar conflict erupted between Senate President Bukola Saraki and this same Akpabio, over a seating dispute. Akpabio, like Natasha, had initially refused to comply with the seating change, but he eventually apologized after realizing his mistake. Now, the question is: will Senator Natasha, too, recognize her wrong and offer an apology for her conduct?
Her actions on Thursday, though dramatic, represent issues of adherence to parliamentary order. Emotions must be set aside in the interest of upholding the dignity of the Senate and the laws that govern it. In this case, Natasha was wrong to challenge the Senate President’s directive, and it is hoped that she will reflect on her actions and offer a public apology, just as Akpabio did in the past.
While we must acknowledge the individual perspectives and grievances of senators, the Senate must function within the confines of established rules and traditions. The Senate President’s decision regarding the seating arrangements was justified, and Senator Natasha’s refusal to comply was a breach of parliamentary procedure. This was not a personal attack on her, but rather a necessary step in maintaining the integrity and order of the chamber.
As a concerned citizen of Kogi Central, it is important that we stand for decorum and uphold the values of our legislative institutions. Emotions may run high, but let us not forget that the Senate is a place where rules must govern, not personal preferences. In the future, it is imperative that all senators, including Natasha, respect the traditions and rules that keep the Senate functioning as the hallowed chamber that it is.
Ozumi Abdul Fnipr is a journalist, writer, strategic communicator, and PR consultant. He can be reached via [email protected]
