Tensions Boil Over: Suspended Senator Natasha Accuses Akpabio of Assassination Plot—”A Desperate Cry for Help”

ABUJA — A political storm is raging in Nigeria’s upper legislative chamber as the suspended Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has fired back at a petition by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, who accused her of criminal defamation and incitement.

Akpabio, in a petition dated April 3 to the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, and copied to Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), claims the embattled senator falsely accused him of plotting her assassination—a charge he calls a “heinous lie” and a “deliberate attempt to incite unrest.”

The explosive allegation stems from Natasha’s comments made on April 1 in Kogi State, where she accused Akpabio of instructing former Governor Yahaya Bello to “eliminate her,” under the guise of an attack from her own constituents.

“This is not only a heinous lie but a reckless and deliberate attempt to damage my reputation, endanger my life and incite political unrest,” Akpabio wrote. “It’s a calculated act of blackmail and character assassination.”

But Natasha, through her legal counsel Victor Giwa, has responded firmly, insisting that her claims were not political theater, but a desperate cry for help.

“She has received the petition and responded. That statement wasn’t a political gimmick—it was a plea to the public,” said Giwa, who also condemned the Senate President for ordering the withdrawal of her security details after her suspension.

Giwa blasted the decision, calling it dangerous and irresponsible:

“You say she committed misconduct, fine. But what does that have to do with withdrawing her security? She’s still a politically exposed person. She has a life outside the Senate.”

The controversy has sparked fierce debate nationwide, as some view Natasha’s suspension and the subsequent petition as an attempt to muzzle a vocal critic of Senate leadership.

Meanwhile, a pro-Akpabio group, Movement for National Accommodation and Consensus for Continuity (MONACCO), has launched a nationwide sensitisation campaign aimed at defending Akpabio’s “jovial and misunderstood” character.

Speaking in Gusau, Zamfara State, MONACCO President Salisu Isah described Akpabio as a friendly leader whose casual demeanor is often misread—particularly by women.

“He’s a jovial man. Some people take advantage of his openness to paint him in a bad light,” said Isah, warning that public misinterpretations could be weaponized for political gain.

He drew comparisons to U.S. politics and past Nigerian political scandals, urging caution in speech by public figures. Still, he stopped short of directly absolving Akpabio, admitting:

“Careless talk can cost a life.”

Isah maintained that the Akpoti-Akpabio drama is a politically driven distraction meant to divide the Senate and mislead the public.

As MONACCO tours the country to boost Akpabio’s image, the legal and political fate of Senator Natasha hangs in the balance. With national attention locked on the case, questions continue to swirl:
Is this a case of whistleblowing—or a dangerous political game?

A Case for Peaceful Separation: Rethinking Nigeria’s Forced Unity

By George Omagbemi Sylvester

For over a century, Nigeria has struggled to hold together the patchwork quilt of nations stitched into a single entity by British colonial interests. Despite decades of independence, national identity remains elusive. Ethnic rivalries, regional marginalization, and economic imbalances continue to tear at the fragile fabric of this artificial federation. While many still advocate unity as a moral imperative, a growing number of Nigerians—both at home and in the diaspora—are beginning to explore an alternative path: peaceful separation.

Contrary to widespread fear-mongering, separation is not synonymous with war. History is replete with examples of nations that have dissolved their unions with dignity and peace. The United States split from Britain in 1776; Belgium separated from the Netherlands in 1830; Singapore parted ways with Malaysia in 1965 over ethnic and religious tensions; and in 1993, Czechoslovakia executed the “Velvet Divorce,” birthing the Czech Republic and Slovakia without a single drop of blood.

On the African continent, Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993, and South Sudan emerged from Sudan in 2011. Though not all secessions have been peaceful—Yugoslavia and parts of the former Soviet Union being cautionary tales—the possibility of a negotiated and dignified exit remains viable, especially for countries like Nigeria whose internal contradictions are too numerous and too persistent to ignore.

A Forced Union in Crisis

At the heart of Nigeria’s problem is the failure to evolve from a colonial configuration into a truly federal state. The so-called ethnic groups in Nigeria—Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Tiv, and others—are not mere “tribes,” as often mislabeled, but full-fledged nations in their own right. In Europe, these groups would be called what they are: distinct nations with different languages, cultures, worldviews, and aspirations.

What unites Nigeria today is not a shared vision but a centralized constitution imposed through military fiat and maintained by successive governments for political expediency. The result is an overburdened federal system where one region’s dominance is perceived—rightly or wrongly—as a source of systemic injustice. The cry for restructuring has been loud and long, but it is now giving way to a more definitive demand: peaceful separation.

Learning from the World

Across the globe, countries have restructured or separated in response to ethnic and economic realities. Norway and Sweden amicably separated in 1905. Iceland left Denmark in 1944. The Soviet Union disintegrated into multiple nations—Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, and others—based on ethnic lines. Even in modern-day Canada, Quebec retains a high level of autonomy with French as its official language, reflecting its cultural uniqueness.

Switzerland, often cited as a model multi-ethnic state, rotates its presidency annually among representatives of four major linguistic groups: German, French, Italian, and Romansh. Its federation is composed of cantons, each retaining significant autonomy. Nigeria, by contrast, continues to centralize power in a federal government that is neither representative nor responsive.

The Nigerian Paradox
Some still argue that all Nigeria needs is good leadership. But that ignores the structural imbalances hardwired into the country’s political architecture. Even the most competent leader will struggle under a system that rewards ethnic hegemony and punishes regional innovation.

Take the Southeast, for example. The five states—Anambra, Imo, Abia, Ebonyi, and Enugu—have a combined landmass of just 29,525 km², less than that of Kogi State alone (29,833 km²). Niger State, the largest in Nigeria, is bigger than the entire Southwest minus Lagos. Yet policy frameworks continue to treat all regions as though they are equally endowed and equally represented.

The same structural flaw affects economic planning. The so-called cattle colony debate reveals how absurd Nigeria’s policymaking has become. Despite not ranking among the top 20 global cattle producers, Nigeria insists on clinging to archaic methods like open grazing—resulting in violent clashes between farmers and herders. Meanwhile, countries like India, Brazil, and Australia—world leaders in cattle and beef exports—have long adopted modern ranching techniques.

According to global data:

India has over 300 million cattle.

Brazil follows with 226 million.

The USA and EU are also in the top five, with mechanized systems that prioritize productivity and safety.

Yet, in Nigeria, the cattle business has become not just a source of conflict, but a symbol of how far behind the nation is in adopting global best practices.

Separation as Development Catalyst
Separation, if well negotiated, can usher in a new era of healthy competition among Nigeria’s regions. Singapore, after its split from Malaysia, transformed itself into one of the world’s leading economies. Bangladesh, which broke away from Pakistan in 1971, has surpassed its former counterpart in several human development indicators.

What holds Nigeria back is not a lack of human or natural resources, but the illusion of unity under a flawed structure. The political elite preach unity not out of conviction but convenience. They benefit from a system that concentrates wealth and power in the center while denying states the autonomy to thrive or fail on their own merits.

A peaceful separation could enable each region to pursue its developmental vision without interference. The North, with its vast landmass, could become a hub for ranching and renewable energy. The South could focus on industrialization and technology. The East could pursue its vision of commerce and manufacturing. Rather than clashing over a failing center, each region could chart its own path.

The Path Forward
Nigeria must confront its truths. The forced amalgamation of 1914 was never about nation-building—it was about administrative convenience for the British Empire. That colonial logic no longer serves the aspirations of the people.

What is needed now is a national conversation—not driven by fear, but by courage. A conference where all ethnic nationalities, civil society groups, youth representatives, and diaspora voices can negotiate new terms of coexistence. Whether that leads to a restructured federation or an amicable separation, the goal should be justice, peace, and prosperity.

It is not enough to quote slogans like “One Nigeria.” Unity, like marriage, must be consensual. It must be renewed with shared values, mutual respect, and equitable governance. Otherwise, it becomes a prison rather than a partnership.

As the world evolves, Nigeria must evolve too. And if evolution means reconfiguration, then so be it. Let us give peace a chance—not just by tolerating each other under duress, but by honoring each other’s right to self-determination.

Lord of Rivers? Outrage as Sole Administrator Ibas Sacks 23 LG Bosses, Defies Court Summons

In a stunning move that has rocked the political foundations of Rivers State, Sole Administrator Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd.) is under fire for sacking all 23 local government caretakers and the Chairman of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC), barely 24 hours after a Federal High Court ordered him to appear and justify his intended actions.

Ibas, appointed to temporarily steer the state’s affairs following months of political crisis, drew fierce backlash on Wednesday when his administration announced sweeping changes in local governance and state institutions—moves widely described as unconstitutional and reeking of “executive recklessness.”

A Defiant Stroke of Power

Through a statement issued by Secretary to the State Government, Prof. Ibibia Worika, Ibas appointed new administrators across all 23 LGAs and replaced the RSIEC chairman, Justice Adolphus Enebeli (retd.), with Dr. Michael Odey, a relatively unknown figure. Odey will work with six commission members—four of whom are professors—raising eyebrows over the sudden academic-heavy restructuring.

“All appointments take effect from Monday, April 7, 2025,” the statement declared, ignoring the pending court proceedings in suit no. FHC/PH/CS/46/2025, where civic group PILEX Centre for Civic Education Initiative had sought a legal halt to Ibas’s actions.

Court Summons Ignored

Justice Adamu Muhammed of the Federal High Court had, just the day before, summoned Ibas to defend his decision before making any appointments. Yet the ink on the summons was barely dry when the state government released the controversial list of appointees.

Governor Sim Fubara’s Special Adviser on Electronic Media, Jerry Omatsogunwa, condemned the move, calling it “impunity taken to the pro-max level.”

“He’s acting like a lord unto himself. We cannot have that in a democracy,” Omatsogunwa said. “Even the National Assembly has dismissed the budget Ibas claimed he was preparing. That is not the mandate he was given.”

Systemic Overhaul or Power Overreach?

In a series of rapid-fire decisions, Ibas has also:

• Suspended all heads of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs)

• Cancelled all ongoing procurement and tender processes

• Ordered refunds of all fees paid by contractors

• Appointed new chairmen and members to both the civil and local government service commissions

While Ibas’s camp claims these moves are part of a constitutional cleanup, critics argue they are a flagrant abuse of interim powers and a slap in the face of due process.

Rivers on Edge

Civil society organizations, legal experts, and pro-democracy groups have all weighed in, warning that Ibas’s actions could deepen political instability in the oil-rich state.

“This is a constitutional crisis in motion,” said Courage Msirimovu, lead counsel for PILEX. “When a court summons is ignored, it’s not just a violation of law—it’s an insult to the entire justice system.”

The Bigger Picture

Vice Admiral Ibas was installed during an intense standoff between warring factions within the state’s political structure. But his recent actions have shifted the narrative—from a neutral mediator to what some now label “a rogue overlord.”

With the court case still pending and political tensions escalating, all eyes are on the judiciary—and the streets of Rivers may not remain calm for long.