Defending Dr. Sandra Duru: A Rebuttal to the Smear Campaign–by Dr.Anietie John Ukpe

A vicious smear campaign has emerged against Dr. Sandra Chidinma Duru (also known as “Prof. Mgbeke”) in the wake of her recent whistle-blowing. This campaign  allegedly spearheaded by Suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and her associates  appears designed to tarnish Dr. Duru’s reputation rather than address the substance of her revelations. Ever since Dr. Duru presented hard evidence discrediting Senator Natasha’s sensational sexual harassment allegations against Senate President Godswill Akpabio, attacks on her character have proliferated on unreliable forums and blogs.

In early March 2025, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan publicly accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment. The narrative took a dramatic turn on May 1, 2025, when Dr. Sandra Duru  a U.S.-based Nigerian activist and media scientist  came forward with evidence that undercut Natasha’s claims. In a live broadcast, Dr. Duru revealed recorded phone calls, messages, and other material which she asserted proved that Natasha’s allegations were fabricated According to Dr. Duru, Senator Natasha had even offered her a bribe of ₦200 million to join in falsely accusing Akpabio of human organ harvesting – an offer Dr. Duru says she refused . The evidence presented indicated “there is no sexual harassment of any kind” in the Akpabio case, directly contradicting Natasha’s story

Dr. Duru did not stop at a Facebook exposé; she submitted the evidence to authorities in the U.S. and elsewhere for forensic analysis and called on law enforcement (including the Nigerian police and international agencies) to investigate . Her bold disclosure effectively cast serious doubt on Senator Natasha’s allegations, portraying them as part of a politically motivated plot. In fact, Dr. Duru recounted that Natasha privately admitted the crusade wasn’t really about seeking justice for harassment at all, but rather “a broader political agenda” to destabilize the current administration – allegedly saying they “don’t want [the] Yoruba government to go beyond four years” . If true, this stunning admission implies that Natasha’s initial claims against Akpabio were a calculated ploy, not a genuine grievance.

Dr. Duru’s revelations struck at the heart of Natasha’s credibility. Rather than refute the evidence with facts, however, Natasha and her allies responded by going after Dr. Duru herself. Almost immediately, a wave of personal attacks and defamatory narratives targeting Dr. Duru began circulating, shifting the conversation away from the truth of the allegations and toward the character of the whistleblower. It is this pattern of retaliation, rather than engagement with the evidence, that raises red flags and necessitates a strong rebuttal in Dr. Duru’s defense.

Unable or unwilling to disprove Dr. Duru’s evidence, Senator Natasha’s camp seemingly turned to smear tactics. Unsubstantiated claims and slurs against Dr. Duru found their way onto open-source forums and gossip sites – platforms with little oversight or credibility. For example, shortly after Dr. Duru’s exposé, threads appeared on Nairaland (a popular Nigerian online forum) accusing her of sundry misdeeds. Likewise, sites like The Nigerian Voice – which often publish unverified “citizen” reports – featured scandalous stories painting Dr. Duru as a fraudster and blackmailer. In one such 2021 piece on The Nigerian Voice, an anonymous contributor alleged that Dr. Duru had defrauded a businessman of ₦1.2 million and had a history of “blackmail” against government officials . Notably, the article provides no hard evidence, relying on unnamed “sources” and sensational claims that Dr. Duru “blackmailed… a deputy governor… until the bubble burst and she ran away” .

These kinds of uncorroborated accusations on self-publishing platforms exemplify the smear campaign’s modus operandi: make Dr. Duru look like a notorious schemer so as to discredit anything she says.

Crucially, forums like Nairaland or open blogs do not adhere to journalistic standards. Anyone can post nearly anything, and false information can spread unchecked. Senator Natasha’s supporters appear to have exploited these channels to amplify negative narratives about Dr. Duru. From Nairaland discussions to viral social media posts, the focus shifted to Dr. Duru’s past and person, rather than the veracity of her claims about the Akpabio affair. Some posts cherry-picked old allegations – many of them long-disputed or dismissed – in an effort to portray Dr. Duru as non-credible. For instance, detractors dredged up decade-old personal feuds and rumors, repackaging them as if they were established fact. On social media, hashtags like #GodOfNatasha trended as Natasha’s fans aggressively attacked Dr. Duru’s integrity, calling her a “peddler of misinformation and malice” engaged in a “calculated attempt to derail” the esteemed senator’s image . In perhaps the most extreme twist, some of Natasha’s online backers even called for Dr. Duru’s deportation from the United States, tagging U.S. authorities in posts and insisting that “individuals who engage in smear campaigns against credible public figures should not find refuge abroad” . Such rhetoric – essentially demanding punishment for the whistleblower – starkly illustrates how personal and vicious the campaign against Dr. Duru has become.

It must be emphasized that none of these forum gossip items or social media tirades provide credible evidence disproving Dr. Duru’s claims about the Akpabio case. They are distractions built on ad hominem attacks. By relying on open forums and dubious “news” outlets to prosecute their case in the court of public opinion, Natasha’s associates underscore the weakness of their position. If solid proof existed that Dr. Duru’s revelations were false, it would have been wiser to present that proof through legitimate channels. Instead, we see an effort to try her in the tabloids of the internet. This tactic – smearing the accuser – is a classic strategy to divert attention, and it strongly suggests that Natasha’s camp would rather assassinate Dr. Duru’s character than confront the truths she unearthed.

Despite the mudslinging online, Dr. Sandra Duru’s record of service and integrity speaks for itself. Far from being the rogue operator depicted by anonymous forum posts, she is a respected entrepreneur, consultant, and civil society leader with a history of positive contributions in Nigeria. Dr. Duru has held several notable positions in public and private sectors. She served as a consultant to key government agencies – including an appointment as advisor to the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) and as a consultant to the Police Service Commission (PSC), among other roles . These positions, entrusted by government institutions, reflect the confidence that authorities had (and continue to have) in her professionalism and ethics. In fact, she was described in one profile as a “former consultant to the Standards Organisation of Nigeria… well connected to several Nigerians in the corridors of power” .

This is hardly the background of a fringe “blackmailer”; rather, it is evidence of a woman often brought in to help reform and advise institutions.

Dr. Duru is also a prominent NGO founder and activist. She established the Pre-Adult Affairs Organization (PAAO) in 1999, a non-governmental organization focused on youth development and welfare. Notably, PAAO is formally recognized by the United Nations – a testament to its legitimacy and global reach. (UN recognition often implies an NGO has attained consultative status or partnership in addressing international development goals.) Through PAAO and other initiatives, Dr. Duru has championed causes such as education, employment opportunities for youth, and anti-violence programs. Her work has attracted international attention and commendation. For example, in 2014 the Nigerian Ambassador to Côte d’Ivoire, Mrs. Ifeoma Akabogu-Chinwuba, honored Dr. Duru with a special award for her “immense contributions to providing solutions to the unemployment, violence and educational problems in Nigeria” . This award was presented at a West Africa Leadership conference and accompanied the launch of one of Dr. Duru’s books on youth empowerment . Such recognition by a diplomatic mission underscores Dr. Duru’s positive impact on society and contradicts any portrayal of her as a societal menace.

Furthermore, Dr. Duru has demonstrated courage and principle in the political arena. Hailing from Imo State in southeastern Nigeria, she has long been involved in efforts to improve governance in her home state. Back in 2011, she was credited as a “quiet power broker” who played a role in the election of Governor Rochas Okorocha in Imo . However, she was never anyone’s pawn; when she perceived that the leadership in Imo was veering off course, she voiced her opposition. Dr. Duru has consistently advocated for clean governance and accountability, at times openly challenging powerful figures. In interviews, she spoke of the need to “rescue” Imo State from misrule, even expressing her intention to form a new political party to offer better leadership . Such statements made clear her stance against corruption and “business as usual” in politics. Indeed, Dr. Duru did not shy away from exposing wrongdoing: she once publicly alleged immoral conduct by a top Imo State official (the then-Chief of Staff, later Deputy Governor) as part of her fight against corruption . While those accusations became controversial and earned her powerful enemies, they exemplify her willingness to take on corrupt leadership rather than tolerate it. This pattern of speaking truth to power runs directly counter to the narrative that she is a habitual blackmailer. On the contrary, it paints her as an anti-corruption whistleblower – the very role we see her in now regarding Senator Natasha’s claims.

Dr. Duru’s clean track record is further evidenced by the absence of any criminal convictions or proven charges against her. Despite years of rumors spread by adversaries (some of which resurface in the current smear campaign), Dr. Duru has never been indicted by a court of law for fraud, blackmail, or other crimes. The allegations are invariably confined to the rumor mill, never validated in an impartial setting. Meanwhile, the positive highlights of her career – principal consultant to national agencies, founder of a UN-recognized NGO, globally lauded activist – are documented and verifiable. She moves comfortably on the world stage as well. In recent years, Dr. Duru has engaged with international leaders and forums addressing social issues. She was even spotted at a high-level meeting in the United States “in the midst of [the] international community, including several presidents around the world”, networking on global development matters . Few private citizens enjoy such access; it is a reflection of the esteem and trust she has earned through her work. It would not be an exaggeration to say that her initiatives have drawn support from statesmen and dignitaries – it is reported that even some former heads of state have associated with her foundation’s programs, lending their name to the cause of youth empowerment. All of these credentials solidify one point: Dr. Sandra Duru is a credible and respected figure whose voice carries weight. Attempts to depict her as a notorious scammer rely on distortions and forum gossip, not facts.

With Dr. Duru’s strong credentials established, we must scrutinize Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s response and motivations. If Senator Natasha truly was wronged by Akpabio and had truth on her side, one would expect her to either present counter-evidence to refute Dr. Duru’s claims or to seek redress through a legal challenge (for instance, suing Dr. Duru for defamation if her allegations were false). So far, Natasha has done neither. Instead, her immediate reaction was to dismiss and deflect – attacking Duru’s person and insinuating a political conspiracy. In a public statement, Senator Natasha labeled Dr. Duru’s Facebook broadcast as “reckless” and “defamatory”, and categorically denied the content of the leaked phone call. She claimed the audio recordings and transcripts were “entirely untrue, and most [likely] manipulated to serve Sandra Duru’s ulterior motive of playing the script of Senator Godswill Akpabio.” . In other words, rather than addressing the specific evidence (the content of her alleged conversations with Dr. Duru), Natasha simply asserts it’s all a hoax orchestrated by Akpabio’s camp. She even went so far as to express surprise upon discovering that “Sandra Duru” is the same person as the blogger “Prof. Mgbeke,” as if to cast suspicion on Dr. Duru’s identity or legitimacy . This evasion and personal attack is telling. By accusing Dr. Duru of “playing [a] script”, Natasha essentially claims that any damning evidence is fabricated by political enemies. Yet she provides no proof of such manipulation – no forensic analysis to show the audio is fake, no concrete contradictions beyond her own denial.

It is also notable that Natasha initially remained silent for a time after Duru’s exposé. Observers noted that 48 hours passed with no substantive response from the Senator, even as the accusations went viral, which some interpreted as an inability to immediately debunk Duru’s evidence. When Natasha finally replied, it was with broad denunciations rather than point-by-point refutation. By contrast, Dr. Duru had presented timestamps, phone records, WhatsApp screenshots, and a detailed narrative. If any of those were falsified, it should have been easy for Senator Natasha to specifically prove it (for example, by producing her own call records showing no such conversations occurred). Instead, we hear general statements that the claims “lack any factual or forensic merit” and warnings that Duru’s broadcast is a “strategic distraction” from the real issues . These talking points do not dispel the evidence; they sidestep it.

The motivations behind Natasha’s aggressive counter-attack become clearer in light of Dr. Duru’s claims. If indeed Senator Natasha concocted the harassment story for political ends – as Dr. Duru’s evidence suggests – then she has a powerful incentive to discredit Dr. Duru at all costs. Her political reputation is on the line. Dr. Duru alleged that Natasha admitted the entire saga was never about sexual harassment at all, but rather a bid to force Senate President Akpabio’s removal and ultimately undermine the current government . According to Duru, Natasha was even promised a high political position (like a state governorship or a federal ministry) if she succeeded in the plot . If any part of this is true, it portrays Senator Natasha as orchestrating a grand deception. Naturally, she would want to bury that narrative by shifting focus to Dr. Duru’s character. The ferocity of the smear campaign – using proxies, sympathetic bloggers, and even unrelated past allegations – indicates how desperate and personal this has become for Natasha. It is essentially damage control: paint Duru as untrustworthy so that the public will ignore her message. But in doing so, Natasha raises questions about her own credibility. Why should Nigerians believe her harassment story if the person who disputed it is supposedly a random “fraudster”? Conversely, if Natasha is confident in her accusation, why not simply allow an independent investigation to run its course (something Dr. Duru has actively welcomed)? By attempting to try this case on internet forums instead of in court or through a transparent inquiry, Natasha’s side undermines its own moral high ground.

One must also consider that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not new to controversy. She has been a vibrant public figure and women’s advocate, but some critics note that she often courts dramatic confrontation in politics. Her credibility took a hit when Dr. Duru disclosed private conversations in which Natasha allegedly disparaged Nigerians as “gullible and hungry” and even insulted respected figures like Dr. Oby Ezekwesili (a former minister) who did not fully endorse her crusade . (Natasha has denied using those exact words , but the very existence of such anecdotes is damaging.) If Natasha did indeed fabricate parts of her story or exaggerate for effect, it would not be entirely out of character for a politician under pressure. The point here is not to villify Senator Natasha unduly, but to highlight that her own actions invite skepticism. By focusing on Dr. Duru’s supposed flaws instead of transparently bolstering her original claims, Natasha has created the impression that her priority is to save face, not to seek truth or justice. That impression is only reinforced by third-party voices in the media: even as one of Natasha’s political allies decried “orchestrated media distractions” against her , he also implored public figures to “resist the politics of personal attacks” and “elevate the standard of public service” . Those words ring true – and they cut both ways. If personal attacks are to be shunned, then smearing Dr. Duru in the press is no more acceptable than any trolling of Senator Natasha. The double standard is apparent.

In sum, Senator Natasha’s credibility problem is self-inflicted: by choosing to attack the messenger (Dr. Duru) so vehemently, she has drawn attention away from her message and toward her motives. This raises a fundamental question for observers: What if Dr. Duru is telling the truth? The more Natasha avoids directly disproving Duru’s evidence, the more plausible Duru’s account becomes. And if Duru’s account is true, then Natasha’s smear campaign is not only unjustified, but an indictment of Natasha’s own integrity. It would mean that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has been attempting to mislead the nation, and when caught, tried to destroy the reputation of the person who exposed her. That possibility must be taken seriously. Thus, it is only fair that we give Dr. Duru’s words due weight and not dismiss them under a barrage of character attacks.

At the core of this issue lies a principle that should guide any rational discourse: the truth of a message does not depend on the perfection of the messenger. Even if (for the sake of argument) Dr. Sandra Duru were the flawed individual her detractors paint her to be, it would not automatically render her evidence false. Facts are facts and deserve investigation on their own merits. Unfortunately, the strategy employed by Senator Natasha’s camp violates this principle by attempting to poison the well – i.e. to make people think, “Don’t listen to Duru because I heard she has a scandalous past.” This is a logical fallacy. The allegations Dr. Duru raised about the Akpabio incident should be examined independently. Are the audio recordings authentic? Do the WhatsApp messages check out? Did Senator Natasha actually make those statements or offers? These questions can be answered via forensic analysis and impartial inquiry – and Dr. Duru has already submitted evidence for such scrutiny . That is the proper way to handle the situation. Whether Dr. Duru is angelic or not is irrelevant to whether her evidence is genuine. We must not lose sight of that.

The smear campaign against Dr. Duru seeks to short-circuit the process of fact-finding by distracting the public. It whispers: “Look over here, not at the evidence.” But as responsible citizens and observers, we should resist being distracted. Indeed, many commentators (even those initially neutral or on Natasha’s side) have warned against the degeneration of this matter into a personal feud. In a statement on the saga, one Nigerian political figure stressed that “the focus must return to the issues that matter,” urging all sides to “resist the politics of personal attacks” and to uphold due process . That wisdom is apt. The real issue at hand is whether a sitting Senator (Natasha) lied about a serious crime and whether a sitting Senate President (Akpabio) was falsely maligned. That is a matter of national importance – it concerns potential abuse of public trust, possible perjury, and the integrity of our legislative leadership. Dr. Duru’s role in this is essentially that of a whistleblower: she brought forth information that could either save an innocent man’s reputation or expose a liar in high office (perhaps both). For performing this civic duty, she should not be made into a pariah. Even if one holds some reservations about her, the proper response would be to verify her information, not to lynch her in the media.

Furthermore, smear campaigns set a dangerous precedent. If every time someone comes forward with inconvenient evidence they are met with character assassination, it will discourage whistle blowing and truth-telling. Today it is Dr. Duru; tomorrow it could be another activist or journalist facing a similar playbook. That is why it is important to push back against such tactics. The message vs. messenger distinction must be maintained for the sake of justice. In this case, Dr. Duru’s message — that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations are baseless and part of a political gimmick — should be examined through formal investigations. Should those investigations find Dr. Duru’s evidence credible, then the focus rightly shifts to Senator Natasha’s accountability. If, on the other hand, Duru’s claims are disproven by solid evidence, then she would face consequences for misinformation. Either outcome is better than a mud fight in the media.

At present, what we see instead is an attempt by Natasha’s side to win the narrative without answering the core question. That cannot stand. By all indications, Dr. Duru has nothing to gain except the truth – she is not running for office, she blew the whistle out of conscience, and she even refused a huge bribe (if her story is to be believed) to stay silent . Her incentive was to expose deceit. In contrast, Natasha had (and perhaps still has) a great deal to gain if her original claims brought down a political opponent. This asymmetry should make observers at least consider Dr. Duru’s credibility seriously. At the end of the day, no number of Nairaland threads or slanderous blogs can erase the facts that Dr. Duru has put forward. Truth is not determined by who yells the loudest or throws the most mud. It is determined by evidence and objective validation. And until Senator Natasha refutes Dr. Duru’s evidence with verifiable facts, her personal attacks remain just noise.

In conclusion, the campaign to smear Dr. Sandra Duru is a transparent attempt to distract from a pivotal issue by discrediting the individual who brought that issue to light. We have shown that Dr. Duru’s reputation as a principled activist and professional is backed by a solid track record – one that includes advising national agencies, leading UN-recognized projects, and receiving accolades for fighting social ills . By contrast, the sources of the defamatory claims against her are dubious at best: open forums and partisan commentary that provide little more than hearsay and character slurs . It is telling that those smears intensified only after Dr. Duru damaged the credibility of a powerful politician’s narrative. This lends credence to the charge that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and her allies are orchestrating a vendetta against Dr. Duru to insulate themselves from accountability.

Dr. Duru’s only “crime,” it seems, was speaking the truth as she saw it. In a healthy democracy, we encourage citizens to come forward with information on wrongdoing – not pillory them. Dr. Duru took a courageous step in challenging a high-profile story that many took at face value. For doing so, she has endured slander and threats. This essay stands in her defense, arguing that the facts she highlighted deserve a fair hearing. We should all be wary of any campaign that seeks to destroy a messenger instead of debunking the message. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant: if Dr. Duru’s claims were lies, exposing them through evidence would have been the best way to disinfect the situation. The resort to shadowy online defamation by Natasha’s camp suggests an unwillingness to face the sunlight of truth.

Ultimately, Nigerians and observers must ask: Who benefits from these diversionary tactics? Certainly not the public, who deserve to know whether a senior official lied. The only beneficiary of silencing Dr. Duru would be someone whose deception was on the verge of being uncovered. Therefore, the smear campaign not only fails to convince – it actively undermines Senator Natasha’s position. Dr. Sandra Duru’s character remains intact in the eyes of those who value evidence over innuendo. She has confronted corrupt leadership before and emerged resilient; this instance is no different. Her challenge to Natasha’s narrative was rooted in a desire to protect the integrity of public discourse from falsehoods. That intention should be lauded, not lambasted.

In defending Dr. Duru, we also defend a crucial principle: that truth-tellers should not be silenced by character assassination. The message she delivered – that we must verify sensational claims and hold leaders to honesty – is one that stands, irrespective of any personal attacks against her. As responsible citizens, let us insist that the focus return to the evidence at hand. Let Senator Natasha present credible proof if she has any, or let the relevant authorities investigate the matter thoroughly. But the ongoing attempt to muddy Dr. Duru’s name is both fallacious and unfair. It is a smokescreen that should be seen for what it is and rejected. In the final analysis, Dr. Sandra Duru’s reputation far outshines the baseless smears thrown at her, and her courageous actions reinforce the axiom that the truth – not smear campaigns – should ultimately prevail in our public conversations.