Akpabio VS. Natasha: Political Sexism or is the Senate a Cult?

I have worked in the National Assembly though in the Green Chambers as an aide earlier on. I have seen power games played in their rawest form. so I understand how the game is played. The National Assembly is not a debating society where lawmakers sip tea and exchange polite arguments.

It is a political war zone not for the weak but where lawmakers have been known to throw insults like free akara and rip agbadas like WWE wrestlers to assert dominance.

What happened to Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was not an accident. It was a deliberate act of political suppression disguised as Senate procedure.

If we are being honest, Nigerian lawmakers hardly follow procedure. They shout over each other, climb chairs, and in extreme cases, physical blows settle matters faster than parliamentary rules.

In this same Senate, a senator once jumped over tables to grab the mace like an action film hero. Nobody declared him “out of order.”

So, who are we fooling?

Natasha’s real offense was not breaking Senate rules; it was speaking with the kind of confidence the system does not tolerate from women. She did not lower her voice. She did not wait for permission. She did not beg.

For that, she had to be reminded of her place.

Akpabio, who now plays the role of Senate Headmaster, was once a student of political hooliganism himself.

When he opposed Bukola Saraki’s leadership in the Senate, he disrupted, challenged, and broke every so-called “rule” to assert his position.

Nobody told him he was “out of order” when he threw his weight around. Nobody switched off his microphone when he flexed his influence.

Now, the same Akpabio wants to lecture Natasha on “respect”? Somebody help me understand this selective amnesia.

The message is clear:

Men in power can be loud and aggressive, but women must be quiet and submissive.

Women in power must not challenge the men, otherwise it’s labelled “disrespectful.”

Women in the Senate must clap, nod, and play backup singers while men take the lead.

The Senate allows men to play rough, but expects women to behave like obedient kitchen wives.

Natasha refused to follow that script, and Akpabio’s Senate is punishing her for it.

Natasha’s seat change was not a coincidence; it is a message and a Political Attack.

For those who don’t understand how the National Assembly politics works, let me educate you.

Where you sit in plenary matters. The further back you are, the less visible and important you become. Cameras don’t pick you up easily. If you raise your hand, it’s like you don’t exist.

The presiding officer conveniently “doesn’t see your hand.”The system gradually silences you without needing to say a word.

First, they moved Natasha’s seat to the far end, near the exit. As if waiting for her to walk herself out.

She sat there. Still, that was not enough for them.

Now, they have moved her seat AGAIN!

They have pushed her to the far end corner of the plenary, the burial ground for lawmakers who don’t talk, don’t think, don’t contribute!

That place is for the benchwarmers, the ones who come, sign attendance, eat money, shout “Aye!” and “Nay!” like programmed robots, then vanish!

Natasha is NOT a benchwarmer. She is not a political errand girl. So why are they trying to bury her voice?

If the Senate follows rules, why was Natasha not informed before her seat was changed?

She woke up one morning, came to plenary, and suddenly… bam! She was told to move. Why?

Why?

Since when did they start moving senators around like chess pieces?

Since when did they start treating elected lawmakers like secondary school students being punished for noise-making?

This is deliberate sidelining. She has been excluded from international engagements, forced to fund her own travels while her male colleagues enjoy first-class treatment.

When she dares to raise her voice?
Her microphone is killed like an unwanted radio station.

Is this a democracy or a boys’ cult?

I have worked with lawmakers. I have sat behind the scenes. I have seen how the game is played.

Nigerian politics is not about truth or debate. It is about who can intimidate who into silence.

Akpabio’s “you are out of order” was not just a procedural statement, it was an attempt to put Natasha in her place.

To remind her that no matter how educated, outspoken, or intelligent she is, she is still a woman in a system built by men, designed for men.

That is the strategy. That is the game.

What Happened to Immunity? Or Does It Only Work for Men?

Senators have immunity for whatever they say on the floor of the House.

That is the law. That is the rule.

Yet, somehow, Akpabio treated Natasha like an errant schoolgirl, as if she was breaking some sacred commandment.

The real question is:

Would Akpabio have done the same if Natasha were a man?

Would he have cut off the microphone of a male senator mid-sentence in that same manner?

We know the answer.

Natasha represents something Nigerian politics is not used to; an outspoken woman who does not wait to be given permission to speak.

The system is playing a dirty game: if we can’t stop her from speaking, they will make sure nobody sees her.

That is why this gbas gbos was different.

This is not about rules.
This is about power.

That is the real game.

The Nigerian Senate has never been a quiet place. It has never been a place where emotions are checked at the door.

It is a battleground where policies, positions, and political futures are fought for.

So why is it that the same Senate that tolerates male aggression cannot handle female confidence?

The Nigerian Senate has always been a boys’ club. Women in the Red Chambers are expected to sit quietly, nod obediently, and support the men.

Natasha refused. And now, they are making her pay for it.

Senator Natasha did what every senator is elected to do. She had every right to push back.

The job of a senator is to speak, debate and challenge issues, not to sit down and watch like a guest at a wedding reception.

If that is now considered “out of order,” then perhaps the entire system needs to be reset.

If a lawmaker cannot express themselves, then what exactly are they doing in the Senate? What is their purpose?

Akpabio, as Senate President, has a duty to manage the house.

Leadership is not about silencing people; it is about managing power, balancing authority with fairness without being threatened by it.

Switching off a senator’s microphone is not leadership; it is dictatorship in disguise.

This was not about rules, this was about maintaining control.

What happened in the Red Chambers was bigger than one argument. It was a reminder that power in Nigeria is still a carefully guarded boys’ club.

A place where women are expected to be seen, not hear

This is not just about Natasha. It is about every woman in power who has been bullied into silence and deliberately made invisible in a room where she deserves to stand tall.

This is about a political culture that calls male assertiveness “leadership” but labels female boldness “disrespect.”

This is about a system that is comfortable with male chaos but afraid of female confidence.

The National Assembly is not a church. It is not a royal palace. It is a political arena. Senators should be allowed to speak, regardless of gender.

Call me ILUO-OGHENE but i remain ILUO DePOET and indeed, i have seen with my own eyes.👀

Oya, talk your talk, let’s hear your view.✍🏻