Court strikes suspension for Nigerian senator who complained of sexism
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in February accused the Senate president, Godswill Akpabio, of making unwanted advances towards her.
Days after she made the comments during an interview with a Nigerian television station, she was suspended from the Senate for six months on an apparently unrelated charge.
The suspension was handed out for what the Senate majority leader called "gross misconduct and unruly behaviour" during an argument that erupted in the chamber over her seating arrangement -- though the case galvanised Nigerian feminists who saw the move as an obvious retaliation.
A court in the capital Abuja on Friday ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan, commonly known as Senator Natasha, to be recalled to the Senate, ruling that the six-month punishment was excessive.
The court also found Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt for violating a gag order on the case, fining her five million naira ($3,250).
When she first detailed the alleged sexual harassment, Akpoti-Uduaghan said the Senate president -- who denies the accusations -- repeatedly blocked a motion she tried to advance and then tied its moving forward to sexual favours.
Speaking to broadcaster Arise TV, the senator said Akpabio told her that the motion could go through if she "took care" of him.
Amid the political fallout, Akpoti-Uduaghan faces another trial for spreading false information after she alleged that Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello sought to have her assassinated.
- Pushback from other women -
While some women's groups rallied around Akpoti-Uduaghan, her sexual harassment allegations were notably met with resistance from other prominent Nigerian women.
Former senator Oluremi Tinubu, who is also Nigeria's First Lady, said in the aftermath that the Senate had acted correctly and that, as a woman, "people compliment you all the time".
Tinubu is a member of Akpabio's governing party, whereas Akpoti-Uduaghan is part of the opposition.
At the time of Akpoti-Uduaghan's suspension in March, women held just 17 seats in the House of Representatives, out of 360. With Akpoti-Uduaghan's ouster, the Senate dropped down to three women, out of 109 seats.
Nigeria has not implemented gender quotas for its National Assembly, a method that some African countries have successfully used to increase women's representation.
The few women in Nigerian politics often come from powerful families and are in many cases the wives, daughters or sisters of politicians -- giving fuel to the stereotype that women are not qualified for office.
The upper chamber itself is rife with sexism, one former National Assembly employee told AFP shortly after the suspension, asking to remain anonymous because of the sensitive nature of the topic.
nro/su/tba/kjm
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Democrats pick fight over how GOP's SNAP change hits states
Republicans are defending recent legislation aimed at incentivizing states to fight erroneous payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — but Democrats are picking a fight over a last-minute change they argue encourages states to have higher error rates. Legislation passed out of the GOP-led Congress on Thursday that could see some states pay a share of benefit costs for SNAP, also known as the food stamps program, for the first time. The federal government currently covers the cost of benefits, but under the plan that's been tossed around by congressional Republicans over the past few months, some states would have to cover anywhere between 5 percent and 15 percent of the benefits costs if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent — which factors in over-and-underpayments. However, changes were made to the text that allowed delayed implementation for the cost-share requirements for states with the highest error rates shortly before its passage in the Senate this week. GOP leadership sought to lock down support from Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, whose state had the highest payment error rate in the country in fiscal year 2024. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans made the change to comply with chamber rules. 'You have to give those states time to adjust because about all they're going to do is get down to that midrange, and then they're still going to have to pay a penalty because they're so high,' he said. 'So, it's about giving states a fair chance to adjust.' Under the plan that was greenlit by Congress on Thursday, some states would begin contributing a share of benefit costs in fiscal year 2028, depending on their payment error rate. But the plan also allows for delayed implementation for two years for states with payment error rates if they reach around 13.34 percent or higher — an effort Republicans say is aimed at providing states like Alaska with much higher rates to bring them down. Hoeven said the GOP-led agriculture committee, which crafted the SNAP pitch, 'came up with a lot of proposals' trying to comply with restrictive rules governing a special process that Republicans used to approve the plan in the upper chamber without Democratic support. Under the rules, Hoeven said, 'they always said you got to give states time to adjust in order to meet the test.' Republicans say the overall proposal is aimed at incentivizing states to reduce erroneous payments. But Democrats have sharply criticized the plan, arguing it would encourage states with higher error rates to continue making erroneous payments. 'The most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill: they have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska: AK, DC, FL, GA, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR. They are rewarding errors,' Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, wrote this week as she sounded off in a series of posts on X over the plan. In another swipe at the plan, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X that he had to text his state's governor that 10 states with 'the MOST ERRORS in administering the program' are 'exempt from food assistance cuts,' at that Hawaii is not exempt because the governor has done 'good work in reducing the error rate by 15 percent.' The comments come as Democrats and advocates have argued the measure could lead to states having to cut benefits because of the shift in cost burden. Recent figures unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showed Alaska's payment error rate hit 24.66 percent in fiscal year 2024. The national average was 10.93 percent. Murkowski said after the vote that she didn't 'like' the bill but sought to 'to take care of Alaska's interests.' But she also said she knew 'that, in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.' 'I don't like the fact that we moved through an artificial deadline, an artificial timeline to produce something, to meet a deadline, rather than to actually try to produce the best bill for the country,' she said. 'But when I saw the direction that this is going, you can either say, 'I don't like it and not try to help my state,' or you can roll up your sleeves.' Republicans also criticized Democrats for challenging a previous GOP-crafted SNAP provision that sought to provide more targeted help to Alaska, as GOP leadership sought to win Murkowski's support for the bill, which ultimately passed the Senate in a tie-breaking vote. However, Democrats opposed previously proposed waivers for the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii, decrying 'special treatment.' In remarks on Wednesday, House Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) the Senate 'had to add something to get to address that challenge that Alaska has.' 'The goal is, from a functionality perspective, they need to get their error rate down as soon as possible, because when the time comes, and they have to start to pay, they don't want to be that high error rate that you're coming in now,' he said. 'In most states, Alaska would be a challenge, I think, but most states have been under 6 percent at one time in past years,' he said. However, he also wasn't 'crazy about' work requirements exemptions for some Indigenous populations in the Senate's version of Trump's megabill that didn't appear in the House bill, as Republicans seek to tighten work requirements. 'It's what the Senate had to do,' he said, though he noted that 'economic conditions are challenging on those sovereign lands and in high unemployment, high poverty.' It's unclear whether the carve-outs were the result of talks Alaska senators had with GOP leadership around SNAP in the days leading up to the Senate passage. The Hill has reached out to their offices for comment. The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development said Alaska has 'one of the largest indigenous populations in the nation,' with Alaska Natives representing 17 percent of the state in 2010. At the same time, the Senate bill nixed temporary exemptions that had been preserved in the House bill for former foster youth, homeless individuals and veterans. Despite being preserved in the House plan, Thompson criticized the carve-outs, which were secured as part of a previous bipartisan deal in 2023. 'It cheats all those individuals from having access to that to us funding their SNAP Employment and career and technical education, because the whole goal here is to raise these people out of poverty if they're struggling in poverty, because that's how you qualify for SNAP,' he said. 'And the fact is, they were made ineligible for the really great benefits.' Other proposals in the party's SNAP plan seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future, changes to work requirements and include a chunk of farm provisions. The plan comes as Republicans sought to find ways to generate north of $1 trillion in savings of federal dollars over the next decade as part of a major package that also advances President Trump's tax agenda, which is estimated to add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficits. Republicans say the proposed spending reductions, which are achieved also through changes to programs like Medicaid, are aimed at rooting out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the federal government. But preliminary research released this week by the Urban Institute found that just the SNAP changes could affect about 22 million families, who researchers said could be at risk of 'losing some or all of their SNAP benefits' under the plan. Asked if last-minute changes to the plan to help other states and not his bothered him, Sen. Jim Justice ( who ultimately voted for the plan, told reporters this week, 'Yes and no.' 'But at the same time, I think they probably had more severe need and so I think it'll be fine,' Justice, a former governor, said Tuesday. 'If it's like any business deal that I've ever seen in my life, you know, the parties of a good business deal walk away after they get something done, and they walk away, and they're probably holding their nose a little bit, and they're probably regretting certain things and saying, 'Doggone, we didn't do good on this and that and everything,' That's a good deal.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Musk's primary threats pose danger for Republicans
Elon Musk is threatening to primary Republicans who voted for President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' posing a challenge for the president and his allies as they look to defy midterm headwinds. Musk vowed earlier this week that Republicans who supported Trump's megabill 'will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth' as the Tesla CEO has reignited his feud with Trump in recent days. Republicans see the comments as unhelpful, with some saying if the threats come to fruition, it could risk diverting resources away in an election environment that historically hasn't been kind to the president's party in power. 'One of the most destructive behaviors that we've had in cycles where we've been unsuccessful in Senate races … are those in which we have expended massive resources in intraparty warfare,' said one Republican consultant who's worked on Senate races. Ever since Musk ended his stint at the White House, the billionaire has been a vocal critic of Trump's major policy bill, taking particular issue with the projected trillions of dollars multiple analyses say will add to the deficit. The House narrowly passed the final version of the bill on Thursday, and Trump signed it Friday evening at a White House Fourth of July event. But Musk's frustrations reached a new point on Monday when he said he would back challengers to Republicans who supported Trump's agenda-setting legislation, while saying he would also look to protect Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a prominent opponent of the bill who has drawn Trump's ire. The Tesla CEO also suggested it was time for a new political party. 'It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country — the PORKY PIG PARTY!! Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people,' he said on the social platform X, which he owns. Some lawmakers have sought to brush off Musk's threat. 'I'll take President Trump's endorsement over Elon's any day of the week, back home,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said in an interview with Just the News's Nicholas Ballasy regarding the potential primary challenge. Marshall said his Republican colleagues were 'ignoring' Musk. Trump, meanwhile, left the door open this week to deporting Musk, who was born in South Africa and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He also suggested Musk's advisory Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could be turned against the billionaire and his companies. 'I think what's going to happen is DOGE is going to look at Musk. And if DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune,' Trump said while in Florida on Tuesday. 'I don't think he should be playing that game with me.' The White House and a representative for Musk did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Some Republicans expressed skepticism that Musk would actually follow through in launching primary challenges against GOP incumbents, while others didn't view the billionaire's remarks as an immediate threat. 'I think the president is much more popular with the base right now than Elon Musk, and I think our elected representatives are also more popular,' said Mark Jefferson, a former executive director for the Wisconsin GOP. 'I don't take the threat all that seriously, because how do you primary hundreds of people?' asked Georgia-based Republican consultant Brian Robinson. Unlike Musk, Trump has a history of trying to oust Republicans with whom he's been at odds, with varying degrees of success. And Trump's allies have already signaled this cycle they're not afraid to go after holdouts and members of the party they see as stymieing the president and his agenda. A pro-Trump super PAC has already been created with the goal of 'firing' Massie. 'Unless and until Musk can start lining up some A-team candidates or credible people or people in the same wing of the party, he's going nowhere,' said top GOP donor Eric Levine, who described Massie as 'fringe.' Other Republicans suggest it may not be long before Trump and Musk are back on good terms again. While it's too soon to say how serious Musk might be about his primary threats, the moves would be an unnecessary obstacle for the party. 'I hope that he doesn't, obviously, because I think that primary fights normally don't do anything but strengthen the opposition,' said longtime GOP donor Bill Bean. Bean acknowledged that Musk 'has a point' about the GOP legislation raising the deficit, but he also voiced concern that Musk's primary challenges against members of Congress could force Republicans to divert resources from areas where the party might not otherwise have been concerned. 'I think that his money would be much better spent instead of primarying conservative Republicans who maybe aren't 100 percent as conservative or 100 percent agree with him to go out and win elections in swing districts,' Bean said. 'I guarantee you, if we had a 30-seat majority in the House and a 12-seat majority in the Senate, the bill right now going through would be a lot closer to what he would like to see,' he added. Musk's remarks represent a noteworthy shift from just months ago, when he was considered one of Trump's biggest allies. His America PAC spent tens of millions of dollars alone supporting the president during the 2024 election, and he was a critical donor for Wisconsin Republicans earlier this year as they looked to narrow the spending gap against Democrats in the high-stakes state Supreme Court race. Even while Musk has opened up old wounds with Trump over Republicans' major policy bill, it hasn't stopped him from offering some praise for the president. He lauded the president last week over his handling of foreign affairs, writing Wednesday in a post on X: 'Credit where credit is due. @realDonaldTrump has successfully resolved several serious conflicts around the world.' Meanwhile, some Republicans have a warning for Musk, should he follow through on his threats. 'Musk is deeply hated among Democrats. For now, he maintains good standing among Republicans, but if he follows through, he will lose them as well and be a man without a country,' said Michigan-based GOP strategist Jason Cabel Roe in an email to The Hill. 'That will sabotage any political or business initiatives he's involved in.'
2 hours ago
Megabill negotiations show Vance is a key player in the Trump administration
Over the past six months, Vice President JD Vance has shown how much of a key player he has become in the Trump administration, serving as the president's most prominent advocate and advancing his agenda. The latest example came this week, when Vance helped push President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill through Congress. Vance held a series of meetings with conservative and moderate holdouts and Senate leadership last Saturday to help move the bill forward. A source with direct knowledge stated that Vance played a key role in talking with Senate holdouts throughout the bill before he ended up casting several tie-breaking votes as president of the Senate and move the spending bill along to the House. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who had been critical of the bill's cuts to Medicaid and SNAP -- the food assistance program -- met with Vance, where he thanked her for being a team player despite her concerns with the legislation, just before she voted for the bill. During the sprint to push the bill through, Vance was criticized for his social post around concerns of the bill's impact on Medicaid, writing that "the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions." During all this, Vance was making phone calls to Trump and the two were updating each other on their talks with senators ahead of the bill's passage. The vice president attended Wednesday's meeting at the White House between Trump and several holdouts from the House as the president ramped up the pressure to vote for the bill. North Carolina GOP Rep. Greg Murphy, who had told reporters on Wednesday night that he was still undecided because of some of the health care provisions, said Thursday that he ultimately decided to support the package after speaking on the phone to Vance and the president. "I needed assurances," he said. A source close to Vance said that he continued to work the phones ahead of the floor vote on the rule, calling multiple House GOP holdouts to make the administration's case for them to support the bill. However, it's not just on the domestic policy front that Vance is having an impact. He has also been critical in supporting Trump's foreign policy. While Trump was weighing the decision to strike Iran's nuclear sites, Vance came to the president's defense after supporters like Tucker Carlson and those in the MAGA base were outspoken against the U.S. getting involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. "He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president," Vance wrote on X. "And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus." Vance's comments were a departure from his prior statements that the U.S. should not get entangled in foreign conflicts. A prime example is the vice president's opposition to the U.S. providing more aid to Ukraine. "I gotta be honest with you, I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another," Vance said in February 2022, amid an explosion of bipartisan support for the country following the aftermath of Russia's invasion. Most recently, Vance expressed concerns about the president's decision to strike the Houthis in Yemen in a Signal group chat with other top administration officials. "I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now," Vance wrote in the chat. "There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc." In the lead-up to the strikes, Trump was trying to engage the MAGA base with Vance to see what their reaction would be if he ordered the bombing. Prior to the strikes, Trump told reporters on Air Force One while flying back from the G7 summit in Canada that it was possible he could send Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff to meet with Iranian negotiators. Vance's active role in moving Trump's agenda forward was always part of the plan. In November, following the election, a source close to the vice president told ABC News that Vance had been tasked to ensure that all of the priorities of the Trump administration move forward and would work on any of the issues Trump needed him to further, signaling that the vice president would not be assigned one specific issue to work on, but would be involved in several policy issues. It was also expected that Vance would be Trump's "eyes and ears" in the Senate to ensure that his agenda moves forward, the source also said. It's familiar territory for Vance, who was elected to the Senate in 2022. All this comes as Vance is viewed by some as the MAGA heir apparent to Trump ahead of the 2028 election. At the same time, he is working to raise as much money as possible for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms as chair of the Republican National Committee -- the first time a vice president has ever held the role. Joel Goldstein, a vice-presidential scholar and former professor at Saint Louis University Law School, told ABC News that Vance is working in a different timeline compared to his predecessors, as he will serve only one term as vice president under Trump. "Every vice presidency is different and one of the things that is unique about Vance's is that every other vice president, you know, with the possible exception of Harris, entered office with the expectation that the president was going to run for reelection," Goldstein said. "I think he's in a very unique position in that his first term as vice president is his last, and so his presidential ambitions, the time for reckoning comes up, you know, much quicker than is normally the case." Following his tie-breaking votes in the Senate, several Democrats who might be opponents in the 2028 presidential election attempted to make Vance the face of Trump's spending bill. In a post on X, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called out Vance for casting the tie-breaking vote to allow the bill to move forward. "VP Vance has cast the deciding vote in the Senate to cut Medicaid, take away food assistance, blow up the deficit, and add tax breaks for the wealthiest," Buttigieg wrote. "This bill is unpopular because it is wrong," he continued. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom told Americans on X to "bookmark" this moment, writing that "JD Vance is the ultimate reason why 17 million Americans will lose their healthcare." In an interview with NBC News, Trump pointed to Vance and Secretary of State and interim national security adviser Marco Rubio as possible successors, and said, when asked, that he believes his MAGA movement can survive without him.
