Opinion
Enough of this frenzy about Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
You may call me any names you like – primitive, chauvinist, bigot, misogynist, whatever – the fact remains that this Senators Akpabio-Natasha imbroglio is an unnecessary distraction and totally uncalled for. What is the big issue that the world would come to a halt on account of a frivolous allegation of sexual harassment?
It amuses me how really petty, sentimental, and flippant we have become as a people being coerced and goaded by selfishly motivated NGOs or CSOs on the payroll of Western interests, who want to make us in their own cultural image in the name of freedoms and rights.
It is disgusting, in fact, saddening, to see well-educated and informed adults fall into this rights quagmire. We must stop indulging such culturally unacceptable imposition that make us look worse than we are and denigrate our values. It is good and, indeed, important to protect our women from rapacious, predatory, and insatiable men by ensuring that they have equal access of opportunities, respect for their dignity, and safety and peace in the workplace.
However, there is a world of difference between respecting women as equal human beings and complete individuals with basic rights and freedoms and giving undue privileges to them beyond what the law says, which in itself is reverse discrimination against men.
Now, feminists and rights activists would want us believe that women are endangered species; only partially.
The world has become more female-oriented than it has ever been by subtle emotional blackmail, which really puts men on the defense to push for certain privileges and concessions of their own. Any married man would tell that feminists are pushing the world to a dangerous extreme capable of creating the Cobra Syndrome, where the envisaged solution becomes worse than the problem.
Hear this: Senator Akpabio is an obnoxious character who by ethical and moral standards, may not have merited to be the Senate president of this country. He is allegedly one of the most corrupt public officers in Nigeria, which was used by the EFCC to force him to join the APC for his “sins to be forgiven,” according to Senator Adams Oshiohmole, then party chairman.
He also betrayed Obong Victor Attah, who chose him as his successor over his son-in-law. His alleged stories with women are rife. But we can’t condemn him because we have a president who is not better and who also made him.
However, none of these disreputable traits mitigate the fact that Natasha is seeking attention and cheap publicity and should not be allowed to disturb and distract the nation from its present challenges of existential nature, socially, economically, and politically.
Nigeria is sitting on a keg of gun powder that could explode at any moment, that the least we could do is to focus on the bigger picture of how to salvage the country. We are in an existential crisis, and the most important thing to us is sexual allegation. It is pertinent here to make a critical distinction between sexual harassment and sexual expression or approval.
A lecturer trying to or taking advantage of his superior position over a helpless student under his tutorship is a predator and a criminal that should be locked up for moral failure and perfidy, and also endangering the future of the young girl, and the investment of her parents. A superior in a workplace insisting on sexual gratification from a junior staff before giving her a legitimate entitlement, and making her life miserable for refusing, is worse than a rapist.
But two adults having a chat about sexual relationships cannot be regarded meaningfully as harassment, especially in a context of near equality of status. It is a transaction of “yes” or “no.” And such a person should not be crucified for doing so, especially where there is no apparent attempt to make a physical contact. Senators are all equal in status and law except that one is made a leader by the rest.
Of course, there are special privileges and pecks of office that go with leadership at every level. It becomes, harassment, therefore, if a ‘no’-answer leads to unpleasant outcomes, such as punishment, denial or deprivation of rightful entitlements. In fact, many of the people shouting blue murder for public notice cannot even accurately define what is sexual harassment that is causing all the brouhaha.
Advanced Oxford dictionary defines sexual harassment as “a form of sexual advances, or remarks”. Mark the words “advances and remarks,” both implying plural or multiple. So, for any advancement or remark to become harassment, it has to be repeatedly. Hence, the same dictionary defines harassment, as “To annoy someone frequently, or persistently, to pester.”
Here, then, is the critical question: Did Akpabio repeatedly or frequently harangue her on the subject of a sexual nature to become an annoyance to her? From her own account, it was once, which she later associated with loss of some favors, such as being removed from certain committee, and denied recognition to present a motion on Ajaokuta. That’s not a correct meaning and application of the word.
Obviously, the world has become hyper-sensitive to gender concerns, but we must not change the cause of nature in our overzealously enthusiastic support for women. The question is, how do a man and woman forge a sexual or marital relationship?
Naturally, the man must of necessity meet the woman and express his intentions. It is then the choice and responsibility of the woman to say yes or no. Ordinarily, this cannot be construed as sexual harassment, otherwise, every married man or those in a sexual relationship of any kind would be guilty of sexual harassment. Yet that’s exactly what Akpabio allegedly did.
Both senators are married; therefore, his ‘sin’ is not sexual harassment, since it was, again, allegedly once, but adultery, if it had been consummated, in which case, the right complainant would not be Natasha, but Mrs. Ekaette Akpabio, or perhaps, Chief Emmanuel Uduaghan. Making Ajaokuta, a problem, which had been there before she was born, and may never be resolved in the near future, cannot be a matter of life and death, or of urgent or great national importance to become a source of significant irritation and mental aggravation to warrant her uncontrollable outburst.
What does she aim to achieve after presenting her motion? Does the Senate have the power to turn the fortunes of the project? It is all showmanship, simply to grab headlines for political gains.
Senator Natasha is not a credible accuser, as stories surrounding her persona is unsavory and unbecoming. The women-senators, such as Ireti Kingibe, Olujimi, Ita-Giwa, and even the First Lady Remi Tinubu, who are being savaged by the gender-warriors on Social media for their words of caution and discretion, cannot be faulted.
Truth is that Natasha lacks the temperament, disposition, experience, and, even, intellect, in spite of her acclaimed legal education, for such a high office of a senator. Yet, she had contested to be governor of her state, Kogi. She does not even know the rules governing her office, nor was she adept at the procedure, which says a lot about her ability and dedication.
Imagine what would have happened that day on the floor of the Senate if she had executive power; it would have been terrible, and those crusading for her should judge her conduct.
All we have said comes to this: She may have a legitimate grievance, but she stool in her stew and has embarked on a fruitless and futile journey that will only earn her headlines and trends and more controversies. But she will be the worse for it in the end, and her political adventure may have reached its destination.