“Calculated Resistance”: Legal Expert Dissects Senator Natasha’s ‘Symbolic’ Apology to Akpabio

• Legal commentator Quadri Ajibade has described Senator Natasha’s satirical apology as symbolic, not remorseful, aimed at asserting relevance and challenging her suspension without confrontation
• Ajibade told Legit.ng that the apology's timing, after a sujud prayer, reinforced Natasha’s grassroots connection and her political resilience
• He stressed that suspension couldn’t override constitutional rights, emphasising that Natasha’s mandate and public voice remained protected under Nigerian law

Lagos, Nigeria - A legal expert has described Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recent satirical apology to Senate President Godswill Akpabio as a strategic use of political symbolism rather than an expression of remorse.

Recall that Senator Natasha had penned a satirical apology to Senate President Akpabio, subtly mocking her suspension while reaffirming her democratic mandate and voice.

Quadri Ajibade, Esq., Managing Partner at Ajibade & Ajibade LP, on Monday, May 12, 2025, told Legit.ng that the senator’s gesture is “rich with irony and layered political messaging—it reads less like contrition and more like calculated theatre.”

According to him, the nature and timing of the apology reveal its symbolic undertone.

“Her expression of apology appears performative rather than penitential. There’s no admission of wrongdoing or misconduct—just a nod to the institutional structure. It’s the kind of ‘apology’ that says ‘I acknowledge your office, not necessarily your authority over my voice.’”

Lawyer dissects timing of Senator Natasha's apology

Ajibade pointed to the timing of the apology, coming shortly after a viral video of the senator performing sujud (prayer), as further evidence of a calculated move to reclaim visibility.

As he put it:

“The timing, immediately after a public show of prayer (sujud) with her constituents, signals a counter-narrative to the suspension—one where she remains visible, unbowed, and politically relevant.”

He stressed that a senator’s mandate comes from the electorate, not from any principal officer of the Senate:

“A senator is elected by the people, not appointed by the Senate President. While decorum is expected, disciplinary actions cannot override the democratic mandate.”

“Her so-called apology subtly reclaims the moral high ground. Rather than challenging the Senate’s authority head-on, she’s used irony and symbolism to underscore the overreach of her suspension without violating protocol.”

Ajibade also reflected on the broader political optics of the senator’s action:

“In a climate where public trust in institutions is low, Natasha’s actions paint her as a grassroots defender—unintimidated by elite politics.”

“Her moves echo historical acts of peaceful resistance: speak softly, bend symbolically, but stand your ground.”

The policy analyst added:

“This apology is not an act of weakness—it’s a masterclass in political resilience. Senator Natasha is communicating to Nigerians and the Senate alike: ‘You may suspend me from the chamber, but not from relevance, visibility, or legitimacy.’”

Natasha: Suspension cannot silence a senator’s voice

On the legality of her public engagement during suspension, Ajibade was firm:

“A senator’s suspension by the Senate, while politically weighty, does not and cannot extinguish her constitutional rights to political expression, freedom of movement, or engagement with constituents.”

Citing specific constitutional provisions, he added that the Nigerian Constitution is clear in its protections—guaranteeing freedom of expression under Section 39, safeguarding the right to assembly and association in Section 40, and affirming in Section 14(2)(c) that “the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured.”

The legal commentator noted that,

“The Senate may regulate internal conduct and discipline its members under its Standing Orders—but these powers do not extend to stripping a duly elected representative of her democratic mandate or silencing her political voice in public discourse.”

“Any such attempt would contravene the Constitution and could be successfully challenged in court, as seen in Senator Ali Ndume v National Assembly (2017), where the court held that indefinite suspension of a senator was ultra vires the Senate’s powers.”

He wrapped up his analysis with a strong reaffirmation:

“Therefore, whether Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is standing in the chamber or kneeling in prayer among her people, her political presence and voice remain protected by law. A suspension is not a gag order.”

Natasha fires back at Akpabio’s lawsuit

Legit.ng earlier reported that Senator Natasha defended her satirical Facebook post, rejecting claims it violated a court order related to her sexual harassment case.

Recall that Akpabio's legal team filed a suit, arguing the post breached a restraining order and sought its removal from her social media platforms.

But Akpoti-Uduaghan countered, asserting the post was political satire protected under free speech, and accused Akpabio's legal team of harassment and attempts to undermine her rights.

Proofreading by James Ojo, copy editor at Legit.ng.

Source: Legit.ng