In every democracy, lawmakers are expected to embody a certain level of maturity, discipline, and decorum befitting the prestige and responsibility of their office. Nigeria’s Senate is no exception. But Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has, in recent months, carved out a public image that raises a troubling question: Is this how a federal lawmaker should behave?
Since the beginning of the 10th Senate, Senator Natasha has displayed a pattern of conduct that suggests an alarming misunderstanding of what legislative responsibility truly entails. At the heart of the matter is not disagreement — disagreement is healthy in a democracy — but the manner in which she chooses to conduct herself: impulsive accusations, confrontational social media outbursts, and a consistent tendency to weaponize public platforms against her colleagues.
One of the clearest examples is her long-running accusation against Senate President Godswill Akpabio — a serious allegation she publicly made, repeated, and amplified. Yet, more than seven months later, she has not presented a single shred of evidence to substantiate what she claimed. In any credible democracy, this kind of behaviour would be examined not as activism, but as a reckless disregard for process and truth. When a Senator makes an allegation of such magnitude, the nation expects facts — not theatrics.
Instead of backing her claims with evidence or following due legislative channels, Senator Natasha resorted to what has now become her familiar strategy: turning social media into a battlefield. The problem is not that she speaks her mind; the problem is that she substitutes Twitter storms and Facebook provocations for actual parliamentary engagement.
Her most recent clash with Senator Osita Ngwu, the distinguished Senator representing Enugu West, only reinforces this troubling trend.
In a now widely circulated post, she wrote:
“Dear Senator Osita Ngwu of Enugu West Senatorial District,
You will open responses in the Senators WhatsApp forum and repost my deleted comments. Else I’ll bring the discussion to the public domain.”
That threat — because it was a threat — reveals everything that is wrong with her approach to leadership. When a Senator resorts to intimidation tactics, leveraging social media outrage as political currency, it raises difficult questions about her grasp of public ethics and institutional discipline.
But this time, she met a different kind of colleague — one who refused to be cowed by such bullying.
Senator Osita Ngwu responded with a firmness befitting a seasoned statesman:
“Someone who called the President of Nigeria a drug baron and who has not retracted the statement should not represent Nigeria and Nigerians in the international and diplomatic society.
Its about the office of the President not about an individual.Meanwhile, bring it up…….”
In that brief but pointed response, Senator Ngwu achieved what many others had avoided: he confronted the pattern head-on. By standing his ground, he reminded the Senate — and the country — that elected office is not a playground for emotional impulsiveness or intimidation. It is a forum for reasoned debate, respect for institutions, and adherence to due process.
The irony is that Senator Natasha often frames herself as a crusader for justice. Yet the tools she relies on — blackmail, threats, unverified claims, and public provocation — are the very antithesis of justice. Leadership is not about who can shout the loudest on social media. It is not about trading dignity for trending hashtags. And it is certainly not about trying to bully colleagues into silence.
No one becomes influential by attacking everyone in sight. Influence is earned through character, consistency, and respect for institutions. Even in moments of disagreement, a Senator should demonstrate restraint, diplomacy, and responsibility — values that Nigeria desperately needs in its leaders.
There is still time for Senator Natasha to reset her approach. She can choose to grow into the role entrusted to her. She can learn that the Senate is a place for evidence, not empty accusations; for deliberation, not intimidation; for statesmanship, not sensationalism.
If she is truly committed to public service, then she must abandon the route of blackmail, the theatrics of victimhood, and the addiction to social-media combat. These tactics may excite a crowd for a moment, but they do nothing to build credibility, respect, or legislative progress.
Public office is not Instagram.
Governance is not Facebook activism.
Nigeria deserves lawmakers who understand the difference.
Senator Natasha now stands at a decisive fork in the road:
Will she evolve into a responsible national leader?
Or will she continue down a path that reduces the dignity of her office and undermines the institution she claims to champion?
The choice is hers — but the consequences belong to all of us.
Dr. Tonye Duke writes from Abuja
