A Quick Response to Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Claims
By Comrade Danfulani Lukman Ohinoyi
For decades, Ajaokuta Steel Company has remained one of Nigeria’s most discussed yet least realized industrial projects. Successive administrations, political office holders, and aspiring politicians have repeatedly invoked the name of Ajaokuta during election campaigns, presenting its revival as a promise capable of transforming the economic fortunes of Kogi State and Nigeria at large.
In Kogi Central particularly, the Ajaokuta narrative has increasingly become a recurring political theme. From one election cycle to another, candidates and elected officials continue to reference the steel complex as evidence of their commitment to development and industrialization. Yet despite years of political speeches, motions, press conferences, and public declarations, the fundamental challenges facing the steel plant remain largely unresolved.
The reality is that the revival of Ajaokuta Steel is far bigger than the influence or capacity of any single Senator, House of Representatives member, governor, or political office holder. The project involves complex technical, financial, legal, diplomatic, and policy considerations that require coordinated action by the Federal Government, relevant ministries, international partners, investors, and regulatory institutions.
While legislators can sponsor motions, advocate for government action, facilitate oversight, and attract national attention to the issue, they do not possess the executive authority, financial resources, or administrative powers required to independently revive and operationalize a steel complex of Ajaokuta’s magnitude.
Recent controversies surrounding claims that traditional institutions could prevent or frustrate legislative efforts aimed at drawing national attention to Ajaokuta Steel by Sen. Natasha H Akpoti have further fueled public debate. However, constitutional realities paint a different picture.
Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, a Senator is elected by the people of a senatorial district and possesses the constitutional right and responsibility to debate national issues, present motions and petitions, raise matters of urgent public importance, and participate in oversight and lawmaking functions.
Consequently, no traditional ruler, royal chief, or council of chiefs possesses the constitutional authority to stop a Senator from carrying out legitimate legislative duties within the National Assembly. While traditional institutions occupy an important place in Nigeria’s cultural and social structure and command enormous respect within their domains, their powers do not extend to directing the legislative business of the Senate.
Traditional rulers and councils may disagree with a Senator’s position, issue public statements, seek dialogue, submit petitions, or communicate their concerns to relevant authorities. However, they cannot legally direct the Senate to prevent an elected Senator from presenting a motion or raising a matter of national importance. What is debated on the floor of the Senate is determined by constitutional provisions, Senate Standing Orders, and the authority of the Senate leadership, not by traditional institutions.
Where a traditional institution believes a Senator has acted improperly, the appropriate channels remain available. Such concerns may be addressed through petitions to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, legal action where necessary, or public engagement. Ultimately, any determination rests on whether the Senator violated a law, constitutional provision, or Senate rule, not merely because influential individuals disagree with the subject matter being raised.
This reality raises an important question for the public: Should the debate focus on who is claiming ownership of the Ajaokuta revival campaign, or should it focus on developing a realistic roadmap capable of finally delivering results?
Many observers believe that the persistent politicization of Ajaokuta has contributed to unrealistic public expectations. The impression is sometimes created that a single elected official can single-handedly revive the project, when in fact its success depends on national political will, strategic investment, policy consistency, and long-term institutional commitment.
The truth remains that Ajaokuta Steel has, over the years, become a recurring campaign theme for successive administrations and political actors. Election after election, promises of revival are made, public expectations are raised, and political capital is built around the project. Yet the steel complex remains largely dormant, highlighting the gap between political rhetoric and industrial reality.
As Nigeria seeks to unlock its industrial potential, the country must move beyond symbolic politics and embrace practical solutions. Ajaokuta Steel should not merely serve as a campaign slogan or political talking point. It should become a national development priority driven by competence, transparency, collaboration, and measurable outcomes.
The Nigerian people have heard promises for decades. What they now demand is progress. The true legacy of any leader associated with Ajaokuta will not be the number of speeches delivered, motions sponsored, media appearances granted, or political narratives promoted, but the tangible steps taken toward making the steel complex fully operational and economically productive.
The future of Ajaokuta Steel will not be determined by political grandstanding, institutional rivalries, or attempts to monopolize credit like Sen. Natasha is desperately projecting herself to Nigerians. It will be determined by serious policy implementation, strategic investment, and sustained commitment to national industrial development.
Until then, Nigerians may continue to hear competing narratives, but what they earnestly seek is one thing: RESULTS.
– Comrade Danfulani Lukman Ohinoyi writes from Okene.
