Parliament’s ‘sex for trips’ claims must be investigated

Allegations that parliamentary officers deny travel opportunities to women who turn down their sexual overtures are disturbing and call for reflection. The claims have sparked outrage, generated online conversations and elicited muted coverage in legacy media.

At the centre of the claims is former Nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba. Last year, she made allegations against the Senate Clerk. She failed to provide evidence, leading to her suspension from Parliament and expulsion from her party. Last week, the High Court awarded the Clerk Sh10.5 million in damages for defamation.

In Nigeria, a senator was suspended from office in March after complaining about sexual harassment by a high-ranking official of the House, sparking protests and condemnation from feminist groups.

Ms Orwoba has doubled down, saying senior parliamentary officials routinely deny women lawmakers and staff foreign travel opportunities when the women decline their overtures. She insists that no investigation was made into her claims before disciplinary action was taken against her. The inverse of Ms Orwoba’s allegations is that those who give in to the demands for sex get disproportionate favours from the parliamentary staff. This is in itself troublesome as it casts aspersions on the character of the “favoured” ones.

As Ms Orwoba awaits her day in court, if she appeals the damages award, the moment presents an opportunity for reflection by the country and scrutiny by the media. 

Should any of the claims she has made be proved, this will not be merely political drama. Whether in corporate offices, media houses, government agencies or the corridors of power, women continue to navigate professional spaces riddled with coercion, gate-keeping and unspoken quid pro quos. For young professionals, sexual favours are too often perceived as the unspoken price of career mobility. 

Normalising harassment

For women in leadership, calling out harassment is still viewed as a betrayal of institutional loyalty or a personal vendetta. The workplace, regardless of sector, remains a contested site for women’s dignity.

The implications are far-reaching. First, when harassment is normalised or minimised, it sets a tone for the rest of society. It communicates to women that their experiences will be doubted, reputations dismantled and that their safety is secondary to institutional image. This has a chilling effect – it deters reporting, reinforces silence and emboldens perpetrators.

Second, such claims reinforce the notion that merit alone is insufficient for women’s professional advancement. When travel opportunities, promotions or high-profile assignments are informally tied to sexual compliance, the value of women’s work is undermined. It becomes harder to separate perception from reality. Women who succeed are unfairly subjected to insinuation and suspicion, regardless of their actual path.

Third, the emotional and psychological toll on women working in these environments is incalculable. Harassment often leaves no visible scars, but it chips away at confidence, career ambition and mental well-being. Many women learn to shrink their aspirations, avoid male mentors or leave hostile sectors altogether – not because they lack talent, but because they lack protection.

Finally, this is not only a gender matter, it is a governance issue. A workplace culture that tolerates harassment is also one that likely tolerates impunity, favouritism and exclusion.

In this context, journalism cannot afford to be neutral or narrowly focused. It must grapple with the systemic nature of the problem and help the public connect the dots between private suffering and public failure.

Sensationalism and voyeurism

In reviewing media coverage of this unfolding story, Nation Media Group platforms have – commendably – resisted sensationalism and voyeurism. The framing has, for the most part, avoided personalising the issue or reducing it to a scandal. Instead, reporting has sought to highlight the structural dimensions of the claims: power disparities, the vulnerability of whistleblowers and the institutional gaps in safeguarding women.

Still, that restraint must be seen as the floor, not the ceiling. Coverage that merely avoids harm is not the same as coverage that advances justice. There is a growing need for journalism that moves beyond episodic allegations and towards long-term structural inquiry. Editors and newsroom leaders must ask harder questions: What systems are in place to address sexual harassment in Parliament? Why are those systems perceived as inadequate or unsafe? What precedents does the court ruling set for other women who may be considering speaking up?

In moments like this, editors play a decisive role in shaping public understanding. Their choices – about language, framing, sourcing and emphasis – determine whether the media contributes to a culture of silence or one of accountability.

Journalism must do more than document these crises; it must interrogate the conditions that allow them to persist. That includes addressing the media’s blind spots and its tendency to treat gendered injustice as isolated rather than systemic.

This is an opportunity for the media to strengthen its public interest mandate – to centre women’s safety and dignity in its coverage, and to hold powerful institutions to account not only for what they do, but for what they allow.

To every woman navigating unsafe work environments in silence: journalism should be your ally, not adversary. Let the record – and the reporting – reflect that.

Contact the Public Editor to raise ethical concerns or request a review of published material. Reach out: Email: [email protected]. Mobile Number: 0741978786. Twitter and linkedin: PublicEditorNMG