In a startling revelation that has sparked widespread concern over the potential abuse of power within Nigeria's political landscape, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, has publicly accused authorities of withholding her international passport, effectively barring her from international travel. The allegation, made during a live broadcast on Facebook on Tuesday morning, comes just days after she marked her second anniversary in the upper chamber of the National Assembly. This incident, according to the senator, mirrors a previous occurrence, raising questions about targeted harassment and the erosion of legislative independence.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, a prominent figure in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and one of the few women in the Nigerian Senate, detailed the events in her broadcast, emphasizing that the passport seizure happened immediately following her celebrations. "Having completed the celebration of my second year, I decided to take a week off, and my passport is being withheld again. The same thing happened," she stated emphatically. Her words, delivered with a mix of frustration and resolve, were streamed to thousands of viewers, quickly amplifying the issue across social media platforms and traditional news outlets.
The senator was adamant in her defense, asserting that she has violated no laws and that no judicial mandate exists to justify the action against her. "I have committed no offence, and there is no order from the court to seize my passport and deny me travelling," she declared. This claim underscores a critical point: in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the deprivation of a citizen's right to free movement—especially for an elected official—requires explicit legal grounding, such as a court-issued warrant or ongoing criminal proceedings. Akpoti-Uduaghan's insistence on her innocence highlights the absence of any such formal processes, suggesting that the move could be extrajudicial.
Delving deeper into the specifics, the lawmaker pointed fingers directly at the pinnacle of Senate leadership. She alleged that the officer responsible for the passport retention explicitly cited instructions from Senate President Godswill Akpabio. "The last time it happened, the officer in charge told us that the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, instructed them to withhold my passport and prevent me from travelling," she recounted. This is not the first time such claims have surfaced; the senator referenced a prior incident, implying a pattern of interference that could be politically motivated.
To fully appreciate the gravity of these allegations, it is essential to contextualize Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan's tenure and the broader political dynamics at play. Elected in 2023 under the PDP banner, she has been a vocal advocate for constituency interests in Kogi Central, a region plagued by issues such as insecurity, infrastructure deficits, and economic challenges stemming from mining activities. Her second-year milestone was marked by reflections on legislative achievements, including bills aimed at empowering women, youth, and local communities. The timing of the passport incident—right after these celebrations—suggests it may not be coincidental, potentially serving as a deterrent to her activities or a response to her outspoken nature.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio, a former governor of Akwa Ibom State and a key figure in the All Progressives Congress (APC)-led administration, presides over the 10th Senate. His leadership has been both praised for stabilizing the upper chamber and criticized for alleged high-handedness. Allegations of this nature, if substantiated, could implicate the use of institutional mechanisms—such as immigration authorities—to settle political scores. The Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS), which handles passport matters, operates under the Ministry of Interior, but high-profile interventions often involve directives from influential quarters. If Akpabio is indeed behind this, it raises profound ethical and constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the autonomy of individual senators.
The implications of this event extend far beyond the personal inconvenience to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right enshrined in Nigeria's 1999 Constitution (as amended), particularly under Section 41, which guarantees every citizen the right to move freely throughout the country and abroad, except where restricted by law for reasons like national security or public order. For a sitting senator, such restrictions could impede official duties, including international engagements, diplomatic missions, or even personal respite necessary for effective representation. Moreover, in an era where Nigerian politicians frequently travel abroad for medical treatment, conferences, or family matters, selective enforcement against opposition voices could signal a broader clampdown on dissent.
Public reaction has been swift and polarized. Supporters of the senator, many from Kogi State and women's rights groups, have flooded social media with hashtags like #FreeNatashaPassport and #StandWithNatasha, decrying what they perceive as intimidation tactics. Civil society organizations, including the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), have called for an independent investigation, arguing that such actions undermine democratic institutions. On the other side, proponents of the ruling party may view this as routine security protocol, though no official statement from the Senate Presidency or NIS has confirmed or denied the claims as of the latest reports.
Historically, Nigeria has witnessed similar controversies involving travel documents. High-profile cases, such as those involving opposition leaders during previous administrations, often involved allegations of passport seizures without due process. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or Department of State Services (DSS) have been accused in the past of placing individuals on watch lists, but these typically require court backing for outright seizure. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan's case stands out because it allegedly stems from internal Senate directives rather than anti-corruption probes.
As the story unfolds, several unanswered questions loom large. What specific "instructions" were given, and by whom exactly? Has the NIS provided any documentation justifying the withholding? Will the Senate Ethics Committee or the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) intervene? Furthermore, this incident could embolden calls for reforms in how travel restrictions are imposed on public officials, ensuring transparency and accountability.
In her broadcast, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan appealed to the public, the judiciary, and international observers for support, framing the issue as an assault on legislative privilege and personal liberty. She vowed to pursue legal redress, potentially through the courts or even the International Criminal Court if escalations warrant it. This resolve reflects her background as a lawyer and activist, known for challenging the status quo in a male-dominated political arena.
The broader ramifications for Nigerian democracy cannot be overstated. If proven, executive or legislative overreach in personal matters erodes public trust in governance. It could deter qualified individuals, especially women, from entering politics, fearing reprisals. Conversely, if the allegations are baseless, they risk damaging the senator's credibility and fueling unnecessary division.
As of Tuesday afternoon, neither Senate President Akpabio's office nor the NIS has issued a formal response. Journalists and activists are pressing for clarity, with some speculating that this could escalate into a full-blown Senate crisis. For now, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan remains grounded in Nigeria, her planned week off disrupted, and her allegations hanging like a cloud over the Red Chamber.
This development serves as a stark reminder of the fragile balance between power and accountability in Nigeria's polity. It compels stakeholders— from the presidency to civil society—to reaffirm commitments to due process and the rule of law. Whether this leads to resolution or further acrimony remains to be seen, but it has undeniably thrust issues of political victimization into the national spotlight once again.
