The recent public conduct of Senate President Godswill Akpabio, particularly a striking verbal misstep, offers a clear lens through which to understand the profound effects of sustained pressure on individuals in demanding leadership positions. What may seem like isolated incidents or errors can often be understood as manifestations of deeper, underlying psychological states, distinctly characterized by apparent mental preoccupation, relentless public scrutiny, and observable verbal slips that seem to emerge under such demanding conditions. While Akpabio has certainly had public gaffes before—ranging from the infamous “prayers to mailboxes” to the “Senate is not a nightclub” comment—the “Tinubu/Buhari” incident stands out as particularly extraordinary and unprecedented in its oddness. This reflects a palpable “Natasha effect” that appears to be impacting him cognitively, emotionally, physically, and more, as Senator Natasha relentlessly pursues her cause, seemingly denying him the psychological and even physical respite that immense power and institutional leverage usually afford.
The Unseen Burden of Unresolved Conflict
At the very core of this observed pattern of leadership appears to lie a significant and ongoing contest: the complex legal and political engagement with Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. This situation seems to have functioned as a persistent chronic stressor since March 2025. The layers of public accusations, the contentious nature of the initial six-month suspension, subsequent court rulings (including the Federal High Court ordering her recall on July 4, 2025, which the Senate has appealed and yet to comply with), and the Senate’s counter-actions may collectively impose a continuous demand on Akpabio’s cognitive and emotional resources. This sustained mental “load” could be further exacerbated by the acute stress of direct, immediate confrontations.
A day before the “Tinubu/Buhari” gaffe, on July 22, 2025, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan attempted to access the Senate chamber. Despite the deployment of police and other security forces to block her entry at the National Assembly, she transformed the event into a dramatic national and global spectacle before the media. This highly public and defiant act of resistance, leveraging the power of visibility, placed Akpabio directly in the line of fire, demonstrating that his institutional power to control the narrative or exclude her was effectively circumvented. This immediate, high-stakes confrontation, culminating in widespread media coverage of her denouncement of Akpabio’s Senate as “the worst,” created an intense pressure cooker environment, directly preceding the verbal slip. This interplay of long-term pressure and sudden, intense challenges appears to create fertile ground for significant psychological strain, and critically, a lack of “rest” for a leader accustomed to wielding institutional power.
Subtle Shifts in Apparent Cognitive Performance: A New Level of Strain
The unrelenting pressure from this conflict appears to contribute to a pervasive preoccupation, suggesting Akpabio’s mind may be consistently engaged with this dominant stressor, even when addressing other matters. This could impact executive functions—the brain’s crucial mechanisms for focused attention, working memory, and the ability to filter out irrelevant information. The resulting cognitive strain can be subtly yet notably observed:
The “Tinubu/Buhari” gaffe, where the current President’s full name was mistakenly uttered during a moment meant for eulogizing a past leader, powerfully illustrates this. This particular error, distinguished by its apparent unprecedented intensity and oddness compared to previous verbal slips Akpabio may have made, could point to a new level of cognitive interference. It suggests that a highly salient, contemporary political figure was so overwhelmingly active in his mental landscape that the information inadvertently intruded into speech related to a distinct, historical event. This appears not to be a simple mispronunciation but indicates a more complex and unusual cognitive leakage, revealing an extraordinary extent of apparent mental busyness and disarray, potentially a direct consequence of the “Natasha effect” following the dramatic events of the preceding day.
Similarly, his public remarks expressing concern that “social media will break the country again,” likely reflect a deep anxiety about the platforms that are amplifying the very conflict he’s embroiled in. While he explicitly stated “country,” it appears he was also internally referring to the immediate political environment he is navigating, suggesting a mind deeply aware of and burdened by the pervasive social media narratives surrounding his actions and the ongoing challenges to the Senate’s authority.
Navigating the Public Gaze: A Highly Visible Challenge
Adding to the observed internal cognitive strain is the unrelenting public scrutiny inherent in such a high-profile role, particularly during contentious periods. Yesterday’s widely witnessed scene of Senator Natasha visibly displaying the court order while being denied entry to the National Assembly underscored this reality with stark clarity. This act transformed a legal dispute into a dramatic public spectacle, ensuring global awareness and intensifying the focus on the Senate’s actions.
The ubiquitous nature of social media ensures constant commentary, criticism, and advocacy, creating an unfiltered feedback loop that appears to offer little mental reprieve. This immediate engagement could intensify the pressure, as leaders are exposed to a constant stream of opinions and criticisms, some of which may be highly inflammatory.
Even the factual, unadorned reporting by respected international outlets like the BBC, while appearing neutral, lends immense credibility and broadens the audience for these events. This global spotlight appears to increase the stakes, positioning domestic disputes within a wider discourse on governance and the rule of law, particularly concerning adherence to judicial pronouncements.
The direct public condemnation from Senator Natasha, expressing that Akpabio’s Senate represents “the worst,” constitutes a significant personal and professional affront. Such public critiques can be potent stressors that may directly challenge a leader’s perceived competence and legitimacy, impacting their self-perception and public image.
Beyond the Public Eye: The Human Element and the Persistent “Natasha Effect”
The ramifications of this sustained pressure appear to extend beyond cognitive performance to fundamental well-being, suggesting a leader under deep emotional, physical, and even moral stress. Prolonged psychological distress is medically linked to various physical health challenges, including cardiovascular strain, compromised immune function, and sleep disturbances. Akpabio’s past public acknowledgment of “exhaustion” (and earlier “malaria and exhaustion”) could suggest a susceptibility to the physical tolls of leadership stress. Furthermore, the pervasive nature of such conflicts may lead to deeper psychological intrusions, with the potential for intrusive thoughts or apparent nightmares ensuring that the mind finds no complete reprieve, even during sleep.
Adding to this burden, even as the Senate has just embarked on a two-month recess, Senator Natasha’s continued and highly visible efforts ensure there is no genuine “rest” for Akpabio. By the time the Senate reconvenes, her six-month suspension, imposed after the March 2025 allegations, will likely have run its course. Her public statements confirming she will not drop the sexual harassment charges mean that the moment she returns to the Senate, the legal and moral battle will escalate anew. This persistence is a key element of the “Natasha effect.” Despite the use of police and other security forces to block her a day before the gaffe, her successful transformation of that confrontation into a national and global media event means the pressure persists. The public eye, largely unswayed by official maneuvers, remains fixed on the situation, demonstrating that even with all his institutional power, Senator Natasha is not letting him rest.
Nigerians, acutely aware of the dynamics at play, understand this “game.” They recognize that Akpabio’s attempts to use institutional mechanisms to curb Senator Natasha’s influence are being met with determined, often publicly visible, counter-maneuvers. This deeply personal impact reflects a significant “Natasha effect” on his overall well-being, as she appears to relentlessly pursue her case, not allowing him to rest even with all his institutional power, and despite his apparent efforts to use institutions like the police and judiciary to contain her. This relentless pressure extends beyond the public and professional spheres, likely permeating Akpabio’s private moments. It is probable that the “Natasha effect” manifests as an indirect, constant intrusion. While taking a bath, the quiet moments might be interrupted by swirling thoughts of the ongoing legal battle or public opinion. During essential biological functions like passing feces, a mind heavily burdened by the conflict might struggle to fully disengage. Sleep, often a sanctuary, could be plagued by nightmares or restless nights as his subconscious grapples with the unresolved conflict and the relentless scrutiny. Other private moments, intended for personal rejuvenation or family connection, may also be subtly undermined by an underlying tension, the constant hum of a battle that refuses to subside. This inability to find true mental quietude, even in the most personal spaces, underscores the deep and pervasive nature of the stress he appears to be experiencing. Oh, Akpabio, the stress continues, the nightmare continues, the talk in public continues.
Apparent Implications for Governance and Institutional Flow: Strategic Efforts Undermined
Beyond the individual, a leader’s apparently compromised psychological state, characterized by distraction and stress, could subtly influence the operational flow and public perception of the institution they guide.
Influence on Deliberation and Strategic Response: When apparently under chronic stress, the capacity for nuanced decision-making may be affected, potentially leading to increased rigidity or a focus on short-term solutions rather than broad strategic vision. The quality of legislative outcomes could be inadvertently impacted. Furthermore, the ability to strategically pivot or creatively counter public challenges in real-time, such as leveraging a public eulogy to subtly address ongoing issues, may also be compromised, as the cognitive bandwidth required for such sophisticated responses appears reduced. Indeed, if one considers the possibility that today’s eulogy was intended as a strategic maneuver to redirect national and global attention away from yesterday’s events, the subsequent gaffe arguably subverted this very objective, indicating an apparent failure of the intended strategic distraction.
Perception of Trust: Public gaffes, along with ongoing internal conflicts and perceived inconsistencies in adherence to judicial processes, can incrementally affect public trust in the Senate as an impartial and effective institution. This may, in turn, influence public confidence in democratic principles and the rule of law.
Challenges to Operational Cohesion: A leader’s apparent deep preoccupation or involvement in personal/legal challenges could subtly affect the cohesion and efficiency of the broader leadership team and the overall legislative process, impacting the consistency of direction or the ability to resolve internal disagreements.
The Unfiltered Scrutiny: Social Media’s Enduring Pressure
Unlike traditional print media, the police, or the judiciary, which can sometimes appear to align with or be influenced by powerful interests, social media is not letting Akpabio’s name go regarding Senator Natasha. This dynamic is a critical factor in understanding the persistent pressure he appears to be feeling.
Lack of Centralized Control and Gatekeepers: Social media platforms are largely decentralized. There are no editors, police commissioners, or judges who can simply “kill” a story or suppress a narrative. Information, opinion, and commentary flow freely, making it incredibly difficult for anyone, no matter how powerful, to completely control the narrative.
Instant Virality and Amplification: A single post, video, or image can go viral within minutes, reaching millions globally. The speed and reach of social media mean that incidents like Senator Natasha’s attempt to enter the Senate chamber, or Akpabio’s verbal slips, are immediately amplified and discussed across countless channels. This creates an echo chamber of sorts, where the issue is constantly reinforced and kept in the public consciousness.
Direct Citizen Engagement and Accountability: Social mediaempowers ordinary citizens to become “citizen journalists” and commentators. They can directly voice their opinions, challenge official statements, and demand accountability from public officials. This immediate feedback loop provides little mental reprieve for leaders, as they are constantly exposed to public sentiment, both positive and negative.
Persistence of Information: Unlike a newspaper that becomes yesterday’s news, content on social media persists. Hashtags, videos, and discussions can be revived and revisited weeks or months later, ensuring that issues like the Akpabio-Natasha conflict remain alive and continue to generate discussion. This digital footprint makes it incredibly difficult to “move on” from a controversy.
Circumvention of Traditional Power Structures: Social mediaallows individuals to bypass traditional power structures that might otherwise be influenced or controlled by the powerful. Senator Natasha can directly address the public and present her case without needing to go through media outlets that might be hesitant to cover sensitive issues fully, or rely on legal processes that can be slow and opaque. This direct access to the public is a powerful tool against perceived institutional biases.
Emotional Resonance and Personalization: Social media often thrives on emotional narratives and personal stories. Senator Natasha’s personal allegations against Akpabio and her visible efforts to assert her rights resonate deeply with many, creating a strong emotional connection with the public that is hard for official denials or legalistic arguments to counter. This “human element” amplifies the pressure on Akpabio.
Akpabio’s reported concern about “social media breaking the country again” underscores this point. It reveals a deep awareness of social media’s power to shape public perception, fuel dissent, and maintain scrutiny on his actions and the Senate’s decisions. The “Natasha effect” isn’t just about the legal and political battle; it’s profoundly about the relentless, unfiltered, and widely distributed public commentary that social media facilitates, keeping his name and the controversy front and center in a way that traditional systems might not. He’s not just facing a legal challenge; he’s facing a court of public opinion that never adjourns, and he is apparently feeling it.
A Concluding Realistic Reflection:
In sum, what unfolds in the public arena for a leader like Senate President Akpabio, characterized by observable signs of apparent distracted leadership, preoccupation, and verbal slips (particularly those of apparent unprecedented intensity and oddness) under intense public scrutiny (as vividly demonstrated by yesterday’s events), appears to reveal a complex interplay of personal and institutional pressures. This situation, heavily influenced by the protracted conflict with Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, serves as a potent reminder that for individuals in such high-stakes roles, the accumulation of acute and chronic stressors, with their documented cognitive, emotional, and physical tolls, presents a profound challenge. It is indeed highly probable that Akpabio is operating under deep emotional, physical, moral, and institutional stress. Senator Natasha’s persistent defiance, her successful publicizing of the police blockade against her, and her continued, highly visible pursuit of her rights ensure that despite the Senate’s two-month recess, there is no genuine rest for him. By the time the Senate reconvenes, her suspension will be over, and she has publicly stated she will not drop the sexual harassment charges. Even with all his institutional power and apparent attempts to use state mechanisms like the police and judiciary to contain her, Senator Natasha’s actions continue to deny him the psychological and reputational “rest” that powerful figures often expect, manifesting as an unsettling undercurrent in his most private moments, from bathing to sleeping to basic bodily functions. Nigerians, observing this unfolding drama, are keenly aware of the “game” being played. The realistic observation is that addressing these multifaceted pressures, whether through strategic periods of rest, robust well-being support, or a definitive and transparent resolution of the core conflicts, seems paramount, not merely for apparent personal well-being, but for ensuring the consistent effectiveness and perceived legitimacy of their pivotal role within the democratic framework.
A curious truth emerges: against a woman like Senator Natasha—a lawyer and activist, imbued with the spirit of her Nigerian father and the fortitude of her Ukrainian mother—the battle isn’t confined to public arenas. It appears to subtly seep into the very personal spaces of a leader, unsettling the quiet of a bath, shadowing dreams with nightmares, and intruding upon moments of toileting, showering, and dining, even when alone. This unrelenting intrusion fosters a profound inner stress and pressure, ensuring little true respite from the lingering contest. This comprehensive burden, it seems, visibly surfaces in public gaffes, suggesting a deep struggle to withstand its pervasive weight and other subtle tolls. Indeed, it becomes apparent that even with immense power at his disposal, Senator Akpabio’s ongoing struggle suggests a deeper truth: this woman, Senator Natasha, appears to be profoundly within him, his very thoughts seemingly incarcerated by the persistent contest with her. Such, it seems, is the enduring power and, indeed, the unique disruption of a woman whose resolve remains unbroken. Perhaps, then, the ultimate path to true respite for him lies in simply allowing her to do her work.
This writer, a psychologist, has no personal connection to any of the individuals mentioned. This commentary is written solely in pursuit of democratic accountability, justice, and good governance.
Prof. John Egbeazien Oshodi
Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi is an American psychologist, educator, and author with deep expertise in forensic, legal, and clinical psychology, cross-cultural psychology, and police and prison science. Born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, and the son of a 37-year veteran of the Nigeria Police Force, his early immersion in law enforcement laid the foundation for a lifelong commitment to justice, institutional transformation, and psychological empowerment.
In 2011, he introduced state-of-the-art forensic psychology to Nigeria through the National Universities Commission and Nasarawa State University, where he served as Associate Professor of Psychology. Over the decades, he has taught at Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Broward College (as Assistant Professor and Interim Associate Dean), Nova Southeastern University, and Lynn University. He currently teaches at Walden University and holds virtual academic roles with Weldios University and ISCOM University.
In the U.S., Prof. Oshodi serves as a government consultant in forensic-clinical psychology and leads professional and research initiatives through the Oshodi Foundation, the Center for Psychological and Forensic Services. He is the originator of Psychoafricalysis, a culturally anchored psychological model that integrates African sociocultural realities, historical memory, and symbolic-spiritual consciousness—offering a transformative alternative to dominant Western psychological paradigms.
A proud Black Republican, Professor Oshodi is a strong advocate for ethical leadership, institutional accountability, and renewed bonds between Africa and its global diaspora—working across borders to inspire psychological resilience, systemic reform, and forward-looking public dialogue.
