Akpabio rejects Lawan’s argument on Akpoti’s security withdrawal

DDM News

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has disagreed with former Senate President Ahmad Lawan over the security withdrawal of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti.

Diaspora digital media (DDM) reports that the controversy began after the Senate suspended Akpoti over allegations of misconduct and violations of legislative rules.

Despite her suspension, Akpoti retains her senatorial status, raising concerns about whether her security detail should be withdrawn.

Ahmad Lawan strongly opposed the decision to remove Akpoti’s security, arguing that she still holds the office of a senator.

Lawan insisted that her security detail should remain intact, as her suspension does not eliminate threats she may face.

He argued that security is not a privilege but a necessity, especially for a public figure like Akpoti.

Akpabio, however, firmly rejected Lawan’s argument, stating that security details are tied to active legislative participation.

He emphasized that once a senator is suspended, the privileges attached to their office, including security, should be revoked.

“If your security is given to you as leverage for being a senator, then it ends when you are suspended,” Akpabio declared.

He further argued that suspension means temporary removal from legislative duties, which should also affect security arrangements.

Lawan, maintaining his stance, reminded the Senate that Akpoti was suspended but not expelled from office.

He questioned why her security should be withdrawn when she still legally holds the title of senator.

He warned that such an action could set a dangerous precedent for handling suspended lawmakers in the future.

Akpabio countered this position by recalling a past conversation with Lawan during their transition in Senate leadership.

“I was with you in the Villa when you declared support for me,” Akpabio recalled.

“I saw you off as a sign of respect as the outgoing Senate President,” he continued.

“When we got to the vehicle, you pointed at it and said, ‘This will be withdrawn from me tomorrow,'” Akpabio added.

“You also said it would come to my house after I win,” Akpabio reminded Lawan.

He then posed a rhetorical question to reinforce his point.

“If I had lost that day, would that vehicle have come to my house?” he asked.

Akpabio used this analogy to argue that privileges are tied to active officeholders, not individuals.

He maintained that security details should not remain with Akpoti while she is under suspension.

Lawan refused to back down, reiterating that Akpoti still holds her senatorial seat despite the suspension.

He insisted that the withdrawal of her security could expose her to unnecessary risks.

He further argued that suspensions should not come with personal security consequences, as lawmakers may be vulnerable outside office.

Lawan urged the Senate to reconsider, warning that this decision could create insecurity for other lawmakers facing suspensions.

Akpabio, however, remained resolute, stating that security privileges must align with legislative duties.

“If she is not performing senatorial functions, why should she continue enjoying benefits meant for active lawmakers?” Akpabio questioned.

He maintained that suspended senators are temporarily removed from office privileges, including security protection.

The debate between Akpabio and Lawan has sparked a larger discussion on the rights of suspended lawmakers.

Some senators believe security should be maintained regardless of suspension, while others support Akpabio’s position.

The issue has also raised concerns about legislative procedures regarding suspensions and their immediate effects.

For now, Akpabio’s stance appears to hold, as Akpoti’s security arrangements have already been affected

It remains uncertain whether this decision will face legal challenges or further Senate debates.

Lawan has not ruled out pushing for a reconsideration of the security withdrawal.

This disagreement highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between legislative discipline and personal security.

It also raises questions about whether suspended lawmakers should retain all privileges until permanent decisions are made.

Akpabio’s argument centers on security as an official privilege, while Lawan insists it is a personal necessity.

The final resolution may influence future cases involving suspended lawmakers and their entitlements.

For now, Akpoti’s security remains withdrawn, in line with the Senate leadership’s decision.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook