Legislative Crises: Keeping (A)breast of Matters

Introduction

Lately, the  Nigerian Legislature, both Federal and State, have been a beehive of activities – from allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation by Senator Natasha Akpoti against Senate President Godswill Akpabio, to the ousting of Rt. Hon. Mojisola Meranda as the Lagos Speaker, and the Rivers State House of Assembly Supreme Court decision.

Senate

But, first, is there a conspiracy against women in governance in Nigeria, particularly in the Legislature? It appears so. As there are only 4 women in a Senate of 109, why should the women not be seated in a conspicuous part of the Chamber? Is it not shameful that in 2025, the Nigerian Senate resembles a glorified Boys Club? It’s bad enough that the ratio is as low as 4 women to 105 men, the Senate then feels that their female members should be hidden, relegated, denigrated and threatened with being dragged out of the Chamber by security? So shameful. See Section 42(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) on the the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex. See the case of Lafia Local Govt v Govt of Nasarawa State & Ors (2012) LPELR-20602(SC) per Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye, JSC. Of course, we know that, at the end of the day, it’s not about where you seat that is most important, but, about the contributions of a Senator to good law making, nation building, and the betterment of the lives of their constituents, and this can be achieved, sitting anywhere in the Chamber.

At least one thing I can say is that, the spouses of the Distinguished Senators appear to be rather supportive, because, in 2019, just as the wife of Senator Elisha Abbo came out to defend him when he was accused of shamelessly assaulting two ladies at a sex shop located at Banex Plaza, Abuja, so also has the wife of the Senate President not only promptly denied any allegations of sexual harassment against her husband, confirming that he is disciplined, she is reported to have even instituted a defamation suit against Senator Akpoti! Senator Akpoti’s husband has also backed her. I saw the front page of This Day of 2/3/25, where it was reported that Senator Akpoti’s husband had stated that “his wife had confided in him about her interactions with” SP Akpabio, and that he had had cause to intervene and request that his wife be treated with the dignity and respect she deserves. I concur.

Though it is trite that he who alleges must prove, and it is also true that, so far, Senator Akpoti hasn’t adduced any evidence to substantiate her sexual harassment allegation against SP Akpabio, another allegation previously levelled against him in the same regard by Ms Joi Nunieh, a past Managing Director of NDDC, doesn’t help matters – it is one allegation too many.  Nevertheless, so far, it’s their word against SP Akpabio’s, maybe that’s why Senator Akpoti may have chosen to do the next best thing – embarrass SP Akpabio publicly, knowing fully well that institution of legal proceedings for sexual harassment based on the facts she has shared so far alone, without more, may not succeed. And, while I cannot confirm or deny Senator Akpoti’s sexual harassment allegations against SP Akpabio since I wasn’t present with them, just as Ms Nunieh’s allegation supports that of Senator Akpoti, a news statement that I read at the weekend, credited to Reno Omokri, may also support the Senate President. Mr Omokri alleged that Senator Akpoti once accused him of sexual harassment at an event held at Aso Villa Abuja, an event he didn’t attend because he was actually in the USA. He stated that he backed his absence with proof. While I have zero tolerance for sexual harassment, I am not a misandrist who is quick to rule in favour of all women without the requisite information for judgement, simply because I’m also a woman. As a Lawyer, I do not jump to conclusions before all the facts and evidence are in. The allegations against SP Akpabio, should be thoroughly investigated.

Sexual harassment, which women have suffered in the workplace from time immemorial, and is also popular in educational institutions (sex for grades), takes on various forms like unwelcome sexual attention; touching of someone’s private areas; lewd unwelcome remarks; express and implied promises of rewards in exchange for sexual favours, or reprisals for refusal of such advances. Harassers may give better employment opportunities to women who succumb to their sexual overtures, while making the work environment hostile for those who refuse. This is Senator Akpoti’s allegation against SP Akpabio – that her refusal to capitulate, is responsible for her travails in the Senate. 

Unlike the USA (see for example, Article 130 of the New York Penal Law), Nigeria doesn’t seem to have adequate laws to punish sexual harassment in the workplace, apart from incidents that occur in tertiary institutions. See Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment in Tertiary Education Institutions Prohibition Act 2016 aka Sexual Harassment Act (SHA), which defines sexual harassment in tertiary institutions. 

Sexual harassment is, many a time, difficult to prove, particularly if it hasn’t culminated in a physical attack, unless women are able to do what Obafemi Awolowo University Student, Monica Osagie, did. She was able to record Professor Richard Akindele who sexually harassed her, by demanding five rounds of sex from her to change her mark from 33% to a pass mark. Unknown to Ms Osagie, she had actually scored 45% which is apparently a pass mark. Professor Akindele counter-alleged that Ms Osagie knew that she had scored 45%, but desired an A grade, and therefore, sexually harassed him in order to get it. His counter-allegations remained unsubstantiated and unproven, and he was found guilty and convicted on four counts. By virtue of Section 8 of the SHA, punishments prescribed for Section 4 offences carry penalties of 2-5 years imprisonment.

Judging from the punishments prescribed by the SHA, sexual harassment is not just a little indiscretion that should be overlooked as one of those things; it is quite a serious offence. But, be that as it may, allegations of the commission of a criminal offence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In Egwumi v State (2013) LPELR-20091(SC) per Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, the Supreme Court held inter alia that proof beyond reasonable doubt means the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. 

LSHA

Sometimes, Legislators do not seem to grasp or understand the Constitution and the laws they have enacted. The question is, why such an important arm of government, is somewhat populated with those who lack the capacity to be there? When I watched a television interview of the reinstated Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly (LSHA), Hon. Mudashiru Obasa on Channels TV’s Politics Today last Thursday, I  found the baseless arrogance and contempt he displayed in that outing, over and above the provisions of the Constitution and the resolution of his colleagues in the LSHA, rather off putting. I don’t remember reading anywhere in Section 92 of the Constitution, that being the Speaker of a House of Assembly is the birthright or exclusive right of a particular person.

Exactly three weeks ago, I discussed briefly the removal of Obasa by a resolution of over a two-thirds majority of the LSHA in accordance to Section 92(2)(c) of the Constitution. Immediately upon Obasa’s removal, first Female Speaker of LSHA, Rt Hon. Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, previously the Deputy Speaker, was elected by a majority of her peers, by virtue of Section 92(1) of the Constitution. We were happily anticipating a breath of fresh air and  crisp initiatives in Lagos; many believed that Lagos State, being the Centre of Excellence and a trend setter, would be happy to showcase this positive development – an indigenous female Speaker, and that Rt Hon. Meranda would be left to preside over the LSHA in peace and not in pieces, after 10 long years of Obasa. Alas! This was not to be. The young lady wasn’t given any respite from ‘wahala’, from the minute she assumed office! Would she have faced these difficulties, had she been a man? I think not. Rt Hon. Meranda announced her resignation yesterday, and is back to her former position of Deputy Speaker.

In the aforementioned interview, Obasa emphatically stated that no allegations had been proven against him. Is he not aware that no allegations of wrongdoing have to be proven against him, for him to be removed as Speaker, nor is his physical presence required for the process of removal, because Section 92(2)(c) of the Constitution clearly doesn’t set out any conditions for removal? The process simply requires a two-thirds majority of members to remove a Speaker – for LSHA that has 40 members, 26.66 approximated to the nearest whole number, 27. It was reported that Obasa was removed by 35 members; unlike a Governor or Deputy that is removed via impeachment proceedings, based on allegations of gross misconduct. See Section 188 of the Constitution and Inakoju & Ors v Adeleke & Ors (2007) LPELR-1510(SC) per Niki Tobi, JSC.

RSHA

It therefore, seemed almost delusional for Obasa to have claimed that he still remained the Speaker of LSHA last week, purporting to sit as such with only 4 other members. He had obviously emulated the warped Rivers State House of Assembly (RSHA) model, which had claimed to be the legitimate House with only 3 members! Section 91 of the Constitution provides that a State House of Assembly ‘shall’ have not less than 24 and not more than 40 members. In Tabik Investment Ltd & Anor v GTB (2011)/LPELR-3131(SC) per Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, JSC (later CJN), the Supreme Court held inter alia that when the word shall is used in respect of a provision of the law, that requirement must be met. With the foregoing in mind, how then could a 3-member House have been properly constituted and constitutional? They failed to form a quorum, which with 30 members presently would be 10 members. For the sake of argument, if 29 members instead of the 27 were alleged to have defected from PDP to APC, would the 30th member have run RSHA, and passed the State budget alone?

Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution, was the basis upon which Governor Fubara and the 3 member RSHA declared the 27 seats vacant. They claimed that the 27 members defected from PDP which sponsored their candidature and on whose platform they won the election, and joined APC before the expiration of the period for which they were elected. See the case of Abegunde v Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors (2015) LPELR-24588(SC). 

The pertinent question to ask here would be, what does it entail to join another party, in this case the APC, which is the party the 27 members were alleged to have joined? A community reading of Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution and Article 9 of the APC Constitution, evinces the fact that stating on the floor of the House of Assembly that an individual has defected to another party, does not and cannot constitute the joining of another party.  Article 9.1(ii) of the APC Constitution provides that a prospective member must fill an application form from the Ward the Applicant was born, resides, works or originates, and this application must be cleared by Ward Executives. Online applications are also allowed, but they must be cleared by the National Working Committee of the Party. Once Applicants are cleared, they are enrolled as members, pay prescribed fees and are issued with membership and dues cards. Did the 27 Lawmakers completed this process? Chapter II Part 1 of the PDP Constitution, also provides for a similar admission process for prospective members. 

Additionally, before joining another party, there must be resignation from the former one (see Article 9.1(i) of the APC Constitution). It is logical that resignation from a political party, would be by way of written correspondence to the Ward where the individual joined the party, informing them of the resignation, and if possible, returning the party card and property in such former member’s possession. See the case of Jime v Hembe & Ors (2023) LPELR-60334 (SC) per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC where the 1st Respondent’s letter of resignation from APC addressed to the Chairman of his Ward, was accepted as proof of his resignation from the party. Is addressing the Speaker who is not a Ward Executive, or maybe not even a member of the resigning member’s old political party, on the floor of the House, the way in which resignation is properly be done? I don’t think so. Perhaps, it’s time for the Constitution to state unequivocally, the actions that must be taken to complete the process of either joining another party or resignation from a previous one, for the purpose of defection.

Conclusion 

While Nigerians expect the Senate to spend its time more gainfully instead of bickering, discrimination against women cannot be tolerated. Senator Akpoti’s matter is said to have been referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics & Discipline, for further action. I hope her allegations against SP Akpabio, will equally be investigated. Let them bear in mind that, even though Section 60 of the Constitution allows the National Assembly to regulate their own procedures, they are subject to the Constitution.

As for the LSHA, as a woman, I am pained. The question is, was Rt Hon. Meranda pushed or did she jump?! One doesn’t have to be Nostradamus to answer that question – she didn’t jump, she must have been forced to resign;  neither does one have to be Einstein to see that only 5 members, including Obasa himself really want Obasa to remain as Speaker; the other 35 had voluntarily removed him. Obviously, there are those pushing the buttons behind the scene, whose wishes appear to override the tenets of democracy. So much for internal democracy!

The RSHA saga appears to have been finally laid to rest, now that the 27 Legislators have been restored. It’s time for serious governance in Rivers State to start. Too much time, has already been wasted.