Senator Natasha Calls Out INEC For Recall Bias: Is The Electoral Body Playing Favorites?

Senator Natasha Challenges INEC’s Integrity in Recall Process

In a bold move, the Kogi Central lawmaker, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has thrown a curveball at the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). She’s accusing the electoral body of showing favoritism in the ongoing recall process against her. This isn’t just a simple accusation—it’s a direct shot at INEC’s credibility and impartiality. The issue has sparked a heated debate about the fairness of the recall process and whether INEC is playing it straight or leaning toward one side.

What’s the Beef? A Closer Look at the Recall Saga

Let’s break it down. On March 26, 2025, Senator Natasha, through her legal counsel, Victor Giwa, dropped a bombshell in the form of a letter. In this letter, she took INEC to task for what she perceives as a biased approach in handling the recall petition initiated by some members of her constituency. Now, this isn’t just a random complaint—there’s a backstory here.

Just the other day, INEC announced that the recall petition against Senator Natasha was flawed. Why? Because the petitioners forgot to include crucial details like contact addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. These are essential under the Commission’s Regulations and Guidelines for Recall 2024. Sam Olumekun, the INEC National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, made this public after a meeting. He added that the process could move forward once the petitioners fixed the issues.

Read also:

Jeffrey Toobins Net Worth In 2024 The Journey Of A Legal Legend

Is INEC Playing Both Sides of the Field?

But here’s where things get interesting. Senator Natasha isn’t buying it. She argues that INEC should have outrightly rejected the petition instead of giving the petitioners a heads-up on how to fix their mistakes. In her view, this makes INEC look like it’s taking sides and undermining its own neutrality.

In her letter, she states, “Your position as disclosed in your press release on March 25, 2025, signed by Sam Olumekun, shows that the Commission has taken sides and has become partial in favor of the Petitioners in this case.” She goes on to say that the petition didn’t meet the minimum requirements and should have been deemed “incompetent” and dismissed outright.

She further explains, “The Commission has observed that the Petitioners’ Petition did not meet the threshold of the requirement of a Petition to recall a member, having not contained the required contact addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses in their covering letter forwarding the Petition as contained in Clause 1(f) of INEC Regulation and Guideline. The proper thing and step to have been taken is to declare the Petition as ‘incompetent’ and subsequently disregard same.”

INEC’s Role: Adviser or Neutral Arbiter?

Senator Natasha takes issue with INEC’s decision to act as an adviser to the petitioners. She argues that this step smacks of bias and undermines the integrity of the electoral process. According to her, “Lawfully, the Commission is supposed to have declared the Petition as incompetent for being patently defective for the reasons stated above but surprisingly, the Commission, instead of disregarding the Petition for failure to meet the requirements, opted to take the role of an adviser to the Petitioners.”

She insists that INEC’s proper course of action would have been to declare the petition incompetent and notify the petitioners accordingly. This would have put an end to the process at that stage. Instead, INEC chose to allow the petitioners to correct their mistakes, which Senator Natasha sees as a breach of due process.

A Call for Transparency and Trust

Senator Natasha isn’t just throwing stones; she’s urging INEC to do better. In her letter, she pleads with the Commission to “do the needful and rebuild the public trust that is fast declining.” She remains hopeful that INEC will rise to the occasion and act in a manner that upholds its integrity.

Read also:

Carroll Oconnors Net Worth 2024 A Legendary Career In Numbers

She also pointed out another inconsistency: “Secondly, the address disclosed and provided in the petition according to your press release was Okene Kogi State, meaning that the two hundred and fifty signatories as contained in the petition came only from Okene, Kogi state, which seems more probable.” This raises questions about the geographic representation of the petitioners and whether the signatures truly reflect the sentiments of the broader constituency.

In the end, this saga isn’t just about Senator Natasha or INEC—it’s about the principles of fairness, transparency, and trust in our electoral processes. As the story unfolds, all eyes will be on INEC to see if they can navigate these choppy waters with the integrity they claim to uphold.