RismadarVoice Reporters
November 5, 2026
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, has defended her distribution of cash grants ranging from ₦100,000 to ₦5 million to constituents, following allegations of vote-buying by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement.
The controversy followed an empowerment programme held on November 2 to mark the senator’s third anniversary in the 10th National Assembly.
Photographs and videos showing bundles of cash being distributed at the event circulated on social media, prompting questions about the purpose and transparency of the exercise.
In a statement issued on Wednesday through her media aide, Mike Idoko, Akpoti-Uduaghan explained that the decision to provide direct financial assistance was informed by beneficiaries’ experiences with previous empowerment programmes.
According to the senator, some recipients of sewing machines had sold the equipment to raise funds for business expansion or meet urgent financial obligations, including rent.
She said cash grants would allow beneficiaries to address their individual business needs, including purchasing stock, acquiring materials and expanding existing enterprises.
The intervention reportedly supported farmers, tailors, content creators and small-scale manufacturers across Kogi Central.
Some beneficiaries received ₦2 million, ₦3 million and ₦4 million, while others were allocated up to ₦5 million through bank transfers.
However, the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement questioned the exercise and called on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate the circumstances surrounding the payments.
In a statement issued in Abuja, the group’s Director-General, John Ughulu, alleged that the distribution could constitute electoral inducement.
He urged the anti-graft agency to establish whether any laws had been violated and prosecute those responsible if evidence of wrongdoing emerged.
The movement also announced plans to mobilise political opposition against Akpoti-Uduaghan’s return to the Senate.
The senator, however, maintained that the grants were intended to support entrepreneurship and strengthen economic opportunities within her constituency.
The allegations have renewed debate over accountability in constituency empowerment programmes, particularly the use of direct cash payments by elected officials.
As of the time of reporting, there was no independently verified evidence establishing that the grants were conditional on electoral support.
There was also no confirmed announcement that the EFCC had opened an investigation.
The source of the programme’s funding, beneficiary selection procedures and total amount distributed remain important questions for public accountability.
