Selective Justice or Politically-Motivated Persecution? The Unanswered Petitions That Haunt Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
In an unfolding drama that lays bare the frailties of Nigeria’s law-enforcement and prosecutorial apparatus, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan finds herself on the receiving end of criminal charges brought by the Federal Government—charges that critics argue amount to an effort to silence one of the Senate’s most outspoken voices.
Yet, while Abuja moves with alacrity to pursue these charges, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s counsel reveals a far more disturbing saga: twelve formal petitions she lodged between March and May 2025—detailing allegations ranging from cyberstalking to an attempted assassination—remain uninvestigated by the Nigeria Police Force or any security agency.
A Tide of Petitions Swept Aside
Between 11 March and 19 May 2025, the Kogi Central senator’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Uju Nwoduwu, delivered a series of meticulously documented complaints to the Nigeria Police Force and the offices of the Inspector-General of Police and Attorney-General of the Federation.
These complaints included, among others, allegations of:
- Cyberstalking and unlawful online harassment by unknown operatives.
- Defamation campaigns designed to erode the senator’s reputation.
- Threats to life, some so grave they demanded immediate protective measures.
- An alleged assassination attempt targeting a member of her official protocol team.
Despite the gravity of these allegations, none of these petitions have triggered any visible action—no interviews of witnesses, no seizure of evidence, nor even a cursory acknowledgment from the police hierarchy.
Such inertia has left the senator’s legal team—and a growing segment of the public—questioning whether these complaints were ever intended to be addressed at all.
Swift Retribution for Counter-Petitions
In stark contrast, counter-allegations lodged by those named in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s complaints—most notably Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello—were acted upon with remarkable speed.
Within days of the senator’s public accusation of an assassination plot, the Attorney-General’s office filed defamation charges against her, citing a televised interview in which she claimed that “discussions” had taken place between Akpabio and Bello to “eliminate” her.
That the same authorities who have “lost” or “misplaced” twelve petitions from a sitting senator would so readily pursue charges based on a counter-petition has fuelled accusations of selective justice—an ugly dance of power where the politically connected enjoy impunity while dissenting voices are muzzled.
“Fairness, Due Process and Equal Justice”—A Call Unheard
In the statement issued on 28 May 2025, Uju Nwoduwu underscored the public’s legitimate expectation that law enforcement must serve as an impartial shield, not a sword wielded at will.
“There is a legitimate public expectation that law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies uphold the principles of fairness, due process, and equal justice—regardless of who is involved,” he declared, lamenting that the senator’s petitions have been met with “crickets” while counter-allegations received “warp-speed” attention.
Analysts note that such discrepancies risk eroding public trust in institutions already beleaguered by chronic under-resourcing and allegations of political interference.
When those in power manipulate the wheels of justice to punish detractors and protect allies, the foundational principle that no one is above the law becomes a hollow slogan.
The Political Theatre Behind the Scenes
The backdrop to this unfolding saga is the bruising rift that began in February 2025, when Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan accused Senate President Akpabio of sexual harassment on live television.
The controversy culminated in her six-month suspension without pay—ostensibly for “unruly and disruptive” behaviour—sparking the nationwide “We are all Natasha” movement in solidarity with the senator and against the Senate’s handling of sexual harassment allegations.
Many perceive the present criminal charges as the latest act in a carefully scripted political theatre designed to neutralise a formidable critic.
By pursuing defamation charges rooted in a broadcast interview—rather than addressing her initial complaints against powerful figures—critics argue that the Federal Government is weaponising the criminal justice system to exact political revenge.
Unanswered Alarms: The Petitions’ Grave Allegations
A closer look at some of the petitions reveals why their neglect is so troubling:
Assassination Attempt: On 2 April 2025, the senator lodged a petition recounting how a protocol officer in her convoy narrowly escaped an orchestrated roadside ambush. Evidence included mobile-phone geolocation records and eyewitness statements.
Death Threats: Two separate petitions, filed 15 April and 8 May 2025, detailed chilling threats made via anonymous calls, warning the senator to desist from her advocacy work or face lethal consequences.
Cyberstalking and Defamation: Multiple online platforms were cited, including social-media accounts allegedly linked to political operatives, which ran coordinated smear campaigns. The petitions included digital forensic analyses documenting hundreds of defamatory posts.
That these grave security concerns remain unaddressed stands in stark contrast to the rapid response the police gave to an orally delivered counter-petition—in essence, punishing the messenger rather than investigating the message.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
Constitutional experts warn that this pattern of selective enforcement could contravene several key provisions:
Section 36 of the Constitution guarantees fair hearing and due process in criminal proceedings. Ignoring serious complaints while prosecuting minor defamation charges suggests a flagrant breach.
Section 14 mandates that sovereignty belongs to the people, exercised through institutions designed to safeguard democratic values. When those institutions are perceived as tools for political score-settling, popular sovereignty is undermined.
Moreover, the principle of presumption of innocence becomes hollow if certain individuals (or political factions) enjoy de facto immunity, while others are subjected to legal harassment.
Such asymmetry corrodes the rule of law and fuels cynicism about democratic governance.
The Government’s Defence and Its Critics
The Federal Government, through the Attorney-General’s office, asserts that the defamation charges stem from a bona fide police investigation.
A spokesperson for the Senate President’s office told the BBC that “there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt” that proper service of court papers occurred, and that the decision to prosecute was made independently of any political figure.
Yet, sceptics point to the timing and the selectivity of action as proof of political meddling.
“If the Attorney-General’s office were truly impartial, it would prioritise the senator’s petitions—some of which document life-threatening conduct—over counter-allegations that hinge on opinion statements,” says constitutional lawyer Ifeoma Chukwu.
“The fact that they have not even given her petitions an acknowledgement speaks volumes.”
A Senator Abroad, Yet Anchored to Due Process
Currently on personal engagements abroad, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has formally acknowledged receipt of the criminal charge notice and pledged to return for arraignment as soon as a date is set.
Her legal team insists she remains “resolute in her commitment to due process.”
Meanwhile, advocacy groups and civil-society organisations have rallied behind her, issuing open letters demanding that the Nigeria Police Force transparently investigate all outstanding petitions.
In an online petition bearing over 20,000 signatures, they call for the immediate establishment of an independent panel to review the senator’s complaints.
The Broader Stakes: Public Confidence and Political Stability
Beyond the fate of one senator lie deeper questions about Nigeria’s democratic trajectory. When citizens perceive the justice system as an instrument of political vendetta, voter apathy grows and social trust erodes.
This climate breeds impunity for the powerful and leaves ordinary Nigerians sceptical about seeking redress for genuine grievances.
Should the government ignore the petitions any longer, the country risks setting a dangerous precedent: that politically inconvenient voices can be intimidated into silence, while those in authority evade accountability.
Such a scenario not only contradicts democratic ideals but jeopardises national cohesion, particularly in a polity as diverse and fractious as Nigeria’s.
Justice Without Fear or Favour
At stake in this confrontation is more than Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s personal security or reputation—it is the credibility of Nigeria’s justice system itself.
The government must choose between two paths: uphold the rule of law impartially or succumb to political expediency.
As public scrutiny intensifies, Abuja’s next moves will send a clear signal to citizens: that justice in Nigeria can indeed be blind to status and power, or that it remains forever tethered to political will.
Only through impartial investigations into all outstanding petitions—without fear or favour—can the nation begin to restore faith in its institutions. For if justice is dispensed selectively, who among us can ever truly feel secure?
Next Steps for Readers:
- Subscribe for real-time updates on this developing story.
- Share your views on social media using #SelectiveJusticeNG.
- Engage: Comment below to demand impartial investigations and equal justice for all.
— End of Report —
Additional reporting from Osaigbovo Okungbowa and Omonigho Macaulay
