NATASHA AT THE IPU: A STRATEGIC PR GAMBLE OR A LEGAL OR POLITICAL MISSTEP?
Lolu Akinwunmi
I’ve been reflecting on why Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan would take her case to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), knowing that it has no jurisdiction over the Nigerian Senate. Who is advising her? How did she gain such swift access to the IPU, getting her case tabled and heard so quickly?
Senator Natasha is a lawyer, and she must be fully aware that the IPU has no authority to sanction the Nigerian Senate, especially since her case is already in court. Is this an instance of forum shopping? Could her actions be seen as contempt of the Nigerian court?
Since international organizations like the United Nations, ECOWAS Court of Justice, and the IPU lack the power to intervene in internal parliamentary disputes, it is clear that this move is more about public relations than legal redress. But what does she stand to gain?
The Likely Objectives of This PR Move
- International Attention & Sympathy
By framing her disqualification as a case of injustice, gender discrimination, or political victimization, she may attract sympathy from international human rights organizations, democracy watchdogs, and global media—institutions that take such human rights matters seriously.
- Domestic Pressure on the Government
A global outcry could intensify scrutiny on the Nigerian Senate and judiciary, possibly forcing domestic actors to revisit the issue due to reputational concerns. Could the federal government lean on the Senate to resolve this matter quickly?
- Strengthening Political Capital
Positioning herself as a victim of oppression could help consolidate her support base, especially among women, youth, and pro-democracy advocates. The question is, can she translate this into bigger political gains in the future? And will the government see her moves as something the opposition is backing to cause embarrassment for Nigeria?
- Triggering Diplomatic Engagement
While foreign governments and international bodies cannot override the Nigerian Senate’s decisions, they might issue statements of concern, adding pressure to the situation. Would the federal government be comfortable with such external scrutiny?
Possible Responses from the Nigerian Government
- Dismissal as a Non-Issue
The Senate and ruling party might choose to ignore the international appeal, arguing that this is purely a domestic matter beyond the jurisdiction of foreign bodies. They may simply wait for attention on the issue to fade over time.
- Defensive Counter-PR
The government could push back with its own narrative, asserting that due process was followed and that her removal was legal and constitutional. However, given the principle of separation of powers, the executive might be hesitant to wade into an issue that directly affects the Senate President’s integrity rather than the Senate as an institution.
- Crackdown or Reconciliation
Depending on the level of international pressure, the government could either harden its stance or, in a less likely scenario, seek a compromise to de-escalate tensions. Could there be an attempt to suppress her further? That would likely backfire, reinforcing claims of political oppression and gender bias, which she could then amplify internationally.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, speaking at the IPU keeps Natasha’s case alive in the court of public opinion, even if it does not yield immediate legal results. This move might set a precedent for how politicians challenge controversial decisions in the future.
It’s an interesting development, and it may trigger other unforeseen consequences.
Lolu AKINWUNMI is the
Group CEO, Prima Garnet Africa, Author, ‘Skin for Skin: The Prima Garnet Story’ and Adjunct Lecturer Pan Atlantic University.
He was President AAAN, Chairman APCON Board, Chairman, Centre for Integrated Health Programmes, Board Member Ogilvy Africa.
