The Committee of the Senate of Ethics, privileges and requests led by Senator Neda Imasuen has refused to listen to a request on sexual harassment, level against the president of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio.
The petitioner, Mr. Zubairu Yakubu, of the Kogi central senatorial district, appeared before the committee on Tuesday in the company of former Minister of Education, Dr. Oby Ezekwesili, who appeared as a witness.
The committee ruled that he could not sit in the request in view of a pending case filed against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for Unoma Akpabio, wife of the president of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio.
Citing the rules of the Senate, Senator Imasuen pointed out that the practice of the red chamber was to decrease requests on any pending matter before the court.
Talking to journalists after the Senate Committee was postponed, indefinitely, Ezekwesili accused the Senate of violating the Nigerian Constitution while maintaining that the aforementioned Senate rule was not superior to the Constitution.
She said: “The Nigerian Senate continues to tell citizens who are subject to the rules of the Senate, even when these rules violate the Constitution. This is unacceptable in a democracy.”
In addition, he argued that the central legislator of Kogi Central was denied a fair hearing in a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
“The Senate placed its own rules above the laws of the Earth. Now, with this petitioner, they have done the same: to use procedural gaps to avoid addressing critical problems.”
The former Minister of Education who insisted that the Senate Committee showed a prejudice required for an independent panel to review the request of the Natasha Senate.
“If a petitioner says he does not believe that the Senate Committee gives them a fair audience due to a clear partiality, it is only that an independent body reviews the matter.”
She warned that Senate's actions could establish a dangerous precedent, where internal rules cancel the Constitution.
“The Senate must respect the Constitution. Otherwise, we run the risk of turning our democracy into a system where powerful people manipulate the processes to silence the opposition and suppress justice.”
Dr. Ezekwesili and Senator Peter Onyaka Nwebonyi participated in a war war, since the senator who represents Ebonyi used derogatory terms to describe the former minister.
Stretching further the argument of the bias, the petitioner, cited previous comments attributed to the president of the Committee, Senator Imasuen, where he dismissed the request of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan as dead at the arrival of the seated in the committee.
“How can the president serve as a judge in a case in which he has already taken a post publicly? What is the need for us to present our case when a verdict has already been given before listening to us?”
Yakubu expressed his disappointment for the objection by the committee to his request that Kogi's central senator who has been eliminated for six months by the Senate will be allowed to testify before the panel as the main witness.
He pointed out that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was in custody of crucial documentary evidence to support his statements, but he was forbidden to enter the National Assembly to testify.
“In my request, I clearly said that my witness would present his tests personally. But he was not allowed to enter the facilities. If my key witness is denied access, how can I continue with my case?”, Legal experience for the petitioner, Dr. Abiola Akinyode also praised the concerns about inconsistencies in the management of the Senate of the requests.
“There is nothing in Yakubu's request that was not in the original request of Senator Akpoti-Uphuaghan. If the Senate dismissed his request as” dead upon arrival “, then logically, Yakubu's should also be dismissed.
“The Senate seems to be operating under its own rules, separated from the Constitution. That is why they can suspend a senator for six months without following due process.”
He also criticized the defense by the committee that he could not sit in a subsistent case before a competent jurisdiction court.
“If they knew that the case was in court, they should simply have written to the petitioner who indicated that they could not entertain him. Instead, they invited him, just to dismiss the request on the basis that he was already in court.”