To assess the credibility of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegations against Senator Godswill Akpabio, it is crucial to examine the issue through the lens of Nigerian law of evidence, relevant provisions in the Evidence Act 2011,The Criminal Code, Penal Code and applicable case laws. The inconsistencies in her claims on sexual harassment, provide grounds to evaluate whether her allegations are supported by credible evidence or fail to meet the required legal standards. Below is a legal perspective:
1. Burden of Proof in Sexual Harassment Cases
Under Section 131(1) of the Nigerian Evidence Act 2011, the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. In this case, Natasha is the accuser, and it is her responsibility to provide credible evidence to substantiate her claims. The law requires that her allegations meet the threshold of probability, meaning that they must be more likely to have occurred than not.
Case Law:
In Akinbade v. Babatunde (2017) LPELR-43463(SC), the Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof in civil cases rests on the party asserting the claim. Natasha must, therefore, present specific, credible evidence to support her allegations.
NATASHA’S CASE:
The inconsistencies outlined in her account including her lack of immediate reaction, lying to her husband, and subsequent reinterpretation of the event weaken her ability to meet the required burden. Her failure to act promptly in a manner consistent with a harassment victim raises doubts about the credibility of her claim.
2. Admissibility of Evidence and Contradictions
Under Section 37 of the Evidence Act 2011, oral evidence must be direct, credible and point irresistibly to the conclusion that the offence was committed. Contradictions in witness testimony can render it unreliable. Additionally, Section 165 of the Evidence Act states that the court may presume facts that are consistent with the ordinary course of human conduct.
Case Law:
In Onubogu v. The State (1974) 9 SC 1, the Supreme Court held that material contradictions in a witness’s testimony could lead to its rejection. Similarly, in Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1, the court emphasized that evidence must be consistent and credible.
NATASHA’S CASE:
Natasha’s account contains several contradictions:
• Her claim that she lied to her husband about Akpabio’s words undermines the reliability of her testimony. If she truly felt harassed, her natural reaction would have been to confide in her husband rather than deceive him.
• Her failure to withdraw from Akpabio’s grasp or express discomfort at the time is inconsistent with the ordinary behavior of harassment victims, as noted in Section 165 of the Evidence Act.
These contradictions weaken her testimony and make it less likely to be admissible or persuasive in a court of law.
3. Corroboration of Evidence
Sexual harassment cases often rely on corroborative evidence to strengthen the accuser’s claims. Section 179 of the Evidence Act 2011 allows a court to consider corroborative evidence in cases where direct evidence may be insufficient. Corroboration can come from:
• Eyewitness accounts
• Documentary evidence (e.g., messages, recordings)
• Immediate disclosure to a trusted person
Case Law:
In Posu v. State (2011) LPELR-1966(SC), the court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct. The absence of corroboration can cast doubt on the accuser’s credibility.
NATASHA’S CASE:
In Natasha’s case, there appears to be no corroborative evidence to support her claim:
• She did not immediately report the incident to her husband or any other trusted individual.
• So far, there is no documentary or physical evidence (e.g., messages or recordings) to substantiate her allegation even though she may later claim that they have been wiped out by DSS.
• Her actions at the time of walking alongside Akpabio do not corroborate her claim of discomfort or harassment.
The lack of corroboration further undermines her credibility and weakens her case under the law.
4. Hearsay and Retrospective Reinterpretation
Under Section 38 of the Evidence Act 2011, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it falls under specific exceptions. Natasha’s subsequent reinterpretation of the event may be considered hearsay if it is not supported by direct evidence or contemporaneous accounts.
Case Law:
In Ekpo v. State (2019) LPELR-46415(CA), the court held that evidence based on retrospective interpretation, rather than real-time observation or reporting, lacks reliability.
NATASHA’S CASE:
Natasha’s claim appears to rely heavily on a retrospective reinterpretation of events. Her failure to report the alleged harassment immediately, coupled with her deceptive behavior toward her husband, casts doubt on the authenticity of her account. Without contemporaneous evidence or testimony, her claim risks being dismissed as inadmissible hearsay.
5. Motive and Credibility of Witness
The credibility of a witness is a critical factor in determining the outcome of a case. Under Section 208 of the Evidence Act 2011, the court is empowered to assess the demeanor, consistency, and motivations of a witness when evaluating their testimony.
Case Law:
In Omogodo v. State (1981) 5 SC 5, the court held that the credibility of a witness is paramount and that evidence tainted by motive or inconsistency must be treated with caution.
NATASHA’S CASE:
Questions about Natasha’s motive such as political rivalry, personal vendetta, or other ulterior objectives must be considered. Her actions at the time of the alleged harassment such as failing to withdraw her hand or report and her subsequent contradictions such as lying to her husband diminish her credibility as a principal witness.
6. Presumption of Innocence
Finally, it is important to remember that Akpabio, like any accused person, is entitled to the presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). This principle requires that he be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case Law:
In F.R.N. v. Iweka (2011) LPELR-9354(SC), the Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right and that the accuser must discharge the burden of proof.
NATASHA’S CASE:
Natasha’s allegation is loaded with hefty assumptions, without credible evidence or corroboration, fail to meet the required standard of proof. The inconsistencies in her account further strengthen Akpabio’s presumption of innocence.
THE CRIMINAL AND PENAL CODE PERSPECTIVE
In addition to the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 and applicable case law previously analyzed, the Criminal Code Act (applicable in Southern Nigeria) and the Penal Code Act (applicable in Northern Nigeria) provide statutory grounds for addressing accusations of sexual harassment and related offenses. To determine whether Natasha’s allegations hold legal merit, and to evaluate the inconsistencies in her account, these laws are critical in assessing the elements of the alleged offense and whether Akpabio’s actions meet the threshold for criminal liability.
1. Elements of Sexual Harassment – Criminal and Penal Code Perspectives
Sexual harassment, though not specifically defined as a standalone offense in the Criminal Code Act or Penal Code Act, involves actions that may fall under offenses such as indecent assault, criminal assault, or insult to modesty. For any of these offenses to succeed, the accuser must prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under the Criminal Code Act (Applicable in Southern Nigeria):
• Section 360: Defines indecent assault as unlawful and indecent acts perpetrated against a person without their consent. The offense does not require actual physical harm but does require proof of an indecent intention.
Important Considerations:
• Natasha would need to prove that Akpabio’s actions of holding her hand or making suggestive remarks were indecent and committed without her consent.
• Her failure to withdraw from Akpabio’s grip, maintain physical proximity, and keep pace with him undermines her claim of non-consent.
• Inconsistencies in her testimony, including lying to her husband, suggest that she may have voluntarily engaged in or tolerated the interaction at the time, which weakens the argument of indecent assault.
Under the Penal Code Act (Applicable in Northern Nigeria):
• Section 285: Criminalizes acts that insult the modesty of a woman through words, gestures, or physical contact. The section requires:
An act that is insulting or offensive to the complainant’s modesty.
• A lack of consent from the complainant.
Important Considerations:
• Natasha’s apparent lack of immediate discomfort by failing to resist or report the incident immediately contradicts the claim that her modesty was insulted.
• Her admission of lying to her husband about Akpabio’s remarks creates a perception of retrospective reinterpretation of the incident rather than genuine harassment at the time.
In both the Criminal Code Act and Penal Code Act, the absence of immediate resistance or an immediate report of discomfort undermines the credibility of the claim. These inconsistencies indicate that Natasha’s allegations may not meet the legal requirements to establish indecent assault or insult to modesty.
2. Consent and the Role of Voluntariness
Both the Criminal Code and Penal Code recognize consent as a defense to charges of indecent assault or modesty-related offenses. For example:
• Section 24 of the Criminal Code states that a person is criminally liable only for acts done intentionally or negligently. If consent is implied from the accuser’s actions, criminal liability cannot arise.
• Section 282 of the Penal Code also provides that lack of consent is a critical element of sexual offenses.
NATASHA’SCASE:
• Natasha’s failure to withdraw her hand, maintain close proximity to Akpabio, and keep step with him suggests implied consent at the time of the alleged incident.
• Any subsequent reinterpretation of her consent (e.g., framing the interaction as harassment after the fact) does not negate the voluntariness of her actions at the time, as recognized under these provisions.
3. Inconsistencies and Credibility of the Accuser
Under both the Criminal Code Act and Penal Code Act, the credibility of the accuser’s testimony is paramount in sexual harassment or assault cases. Inconsistencies in the accuser’s account can result in the dismissal of the case.
Criminal Code Act – Section 359:
This section provides that any allegation involving indecent actions must be supported by evidence that excludes doubt about the complainant’s credibility.
Penal Code Act – Section 287:
This section emphasizes that offenses involving personal modesty or assault must be substantiated with credible testimony.
Case Law:
In Onubogu v. The State (1974) 9 SC 1, the Supreme Court held that contradictions in a victim’s testimony can render the evidence unreliable. Similarly, in Ogunbayo v. State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 157, the court emphasized that inconsistencies in a complainant’s story are fatal to the prosecution’s case.
NATASHA’SCASE:
• Natasha’s admission of lying to her husband creates a contradiction that undermines her credibility.
• The absence of immediate resistance or visible distress at the time of the alleged incident raises questions about whether she genuinely perceived the interaction as harassment.
• Her actions after the alleged incident (e.g., failing to report the incident immediately) suggest retrospective reinterpretation rather than real-time victimization, which weakens her credibility under the law.
4. False Allegations and Criminal Liability
Both the Criminal Code Act and Penal Code Act criminalize false allegations, as such actions can harm the reputation of the accused.
Under the Criminal Code Act:
• Section 125: Criminalizes giving false information to any person or authority, intending to harm another’s reputation.
• Section 376: Provides for punishment for false accusations or defamation of character.
Under the Penal Code Act:
• Section 140: Criminalizes the act of fabricating evidence to falsely implicate someone in a criminal offense.
Case Law:
In Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 1, the court held that false accusations intended to damage another person’s reputation are actionable and punishable under the law.
NATASHA’S CASE:
If Natasha’s allegations are proven to be false or motivated by malice, personal rivalry or political gain, she could face criminal liability under these provisions. Her inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence raise the possibility that her claims were fabricated or exaggerated, which could expose her to prosecution for making false allegations.
5. Presumption of Innocence
Under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Akpabio is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This constitutional right is supported by the procedural safeguards in the Criminal Code Act and Penal Code Act, which require the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
NATASHA’S CASE:
• Natasha’s allegations, without corroboration or credible evidence, fail to overcome the presumption of innocence.
• The inconsistencies in her testimony further strengthen Akpabio’s right to be presumed innocent.
NATASHA’S ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED
Based on the provisions of the Evidence Act Criminal Code Act, Penal Code Act, and relevant case laws, Natasha’s allegations of sexual harassment against Akpabio lack the legal foundation to succeed. The following key points support the dismissal of her claims:
1. Failure to Prove Lack of Consent: Natasha’s actions at the time in issue by maintaining physical proximity and failing to resist suggest implied consent, which negates the elements of indecent assault or insult to modesty under Sections 360 and 285 of the Criminal and Penal Codes, respectively.
2. Inconsistencies in Testimony: Her admission of lying to her husband and her failure to report the incident immediately undermine her credibility, as required under Sections 359 and 287.
3. Absence of Corroborative Evidence: The absence of witnesses, contemporaneous reports, or physical evidence weakens her case under both codes and relevant case law.
4. Potential False Allegations: If proven false, Natasha’s claims could expose her to criminal liability under Sections 125 and 140 for making false accusations.
FINAL VERDICT
In light of the established legal principles, Senator Natasha’s allegations must be unequivocally dismissed as utterly lacking in credibility, devoid of any substantive evidentiary support, and entirely insufficient to meet the legal threshold required to sustain a claim of sexual harassment. Her conduct at the time of the alleged incident, combined with her glaring contradictions and subsequent attempts to retroactively reinterpret events, severely undermine her credibility and render her claims unworthy of belief. It is abundantly clear that her allegations would not withstand scrutiny in any court of law.
The evidence presented fails miserably to meet the burden of proof mandated under Nigerian law, and the glaring inconsistencies in her account provide more than ample justification for the outright dismissal of her claims. Senator Natasha’s behavior mirrors that of the biblical Delilah—a manipulative figure who brings down great men through deceit and treachery. The public and well-meaning Nigerians must be warned: steer clear of her as you would a plague. Her actions reveal a dangerous pattern of manipulation and destruction, and she should be avoided at all costs. Let this serve as a stern warning to all who value truth and integrity.