Abuja, Nigeria – September 2025 – The Nigerian Senate has firmly rejected Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s request to resume her legislative duties, asserting that her six-month suspension, imposed on March 6, 2025, remains in effect until the Court of Appeal delivers a ruling on her case. This decision, communicated through a letter signed by Dr. Yahaya Danzaria, the Acting Clerk to the National Assembly, has intensified an ongoing legal and political saga that raises critical questions about legislative autonomy, judicial oversight, and the rights of elected representatives and their constituents in Nigeria’s democratic framework. The Senate’s stance underscores the complexities of balancing institutional discipline with constitutional guarantees, while the matter’s sub judice status adds further layers of legal intricacy.
The Suspension and Its Origins
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was suspended by the Senate on March 6, 2025, following allegations of breaching the Senate’s standing orders. The suspension stemmed from a heated confrontation during a plenary session on February 20, 2025, where Akpoti-Uduaghan was accused of engaging in “unparliamentary conduct” and “gross misconduct.” Specifically, the senator had made allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio, a claim that sparked significant controversy and polarized opinions within and outside the National Assembly.
The Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions investigated the matter and recommended a six-month suspension, citing Akpoti-Uduaghan’s behavior as a violation of the Senate’s decorum and procedural rules. The suspension barred her from participating in legislative activities, attending plenary sessions, or representing her constituents in the Senate for the duration of the penalty. The decision was met with immediate backlash from Akpoti-Uduaghan’s supporters, who argued that the suspension was disproportionate and politically motivated, aimed at silencing a vocal critic of the Senate leadership.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, a lawyer and prominent advocate for women’s rights and economic empowerment, has been a notable figure in Nigerian politics since her election in 2023. Her outspoken criticism of alleged budgetary irregularities and her advocacy for infrastructure development in Kogi Central have made her a polarizing figure among her peers. The allegations against Akpabio, though unproven, further escalated tensions, drawing attention to issues of gender dynamics and power imbalances within Nigeria’s male-dominated political landscape.
The Senator’s Attempt to Resume Duties
On September 4, 2025, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan formally notified the Senate of her intention to resume her legislative duties, claiming that her six-month suspension had elapsed. Her notice was based on the argument that the suspension, which began on March 6, 2025, should have concluded by early September, allowing her to return to the Senate. However, the Senate swiftly rejected this request in a letter signed by Dr. Yahaya Danzaria, the Acting Clerk to the National Assembly, dated September 2025.
The letter clarified that the suspension remains active due to the ongoing legal proceedings at the Court of Appeal. “The matter remains sub judice, and until the judicial process is concluded, no administrative action can be taken to facilitate your resumption,” the letter stated. The Senate emphasized that any decision to lift or review the suspension would be contingent on the appellate court’s ruling, effectively prolonging Akpoti-Uduaghan’s exclusion from legislative activities.
The Senate’s position is rooted in the principle of sub judice, which prohibits actions that could prejudice or interfere with an ongoing judicial process. By invoking this principle, the Senate has positioned itself as adhering to legal propriety, arguing that allowing Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume her duties prematurely would undermine the authority of the Court of Appeal and potentially influence the outcome of the case.
Legal Context: The Federal High Court Ruling and the Appeal
The legal battle over Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension began shortly after the Senate’s decision in March 2025. Represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Michael Numa, the senator filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja (FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025), challenging the suspension as unconstitutional and a violation of her constituents’ right to representation. The case was heard by Justice Binta Nyako, who delivered a judgment on July 4, 2025, that has since become a focal point of legal and political discourse.
Contrary to initial media reports suggesting that the court had nullified the suspension, the certified true copy of the judgment revealed a more nuanced ruling. Justice Nyako upheld the Senate’s constitutional authority to discipline its members under Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants the National Assembly the power to regulate its own proceedings. However, she criticized the six-month duration of the suspension as excessive, noting that it effectively deprived the people of Kogi Central of representation for an entire legislative session, which typically spans 180–181 days annually.
In her judgment, Justice Nyako stated, “To suspend a member for a period of 6 months equals to a suspension for 180 days, and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House… I find this excessive and overreaching.” She argued that such a prolonged suspension violated Section 63 of the Constitution, which mandates continuous representation for constituents. The court urged the Senate to reconsider the suspension and allow Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume her duties, but it stopped short of issuing a mandatory order for her immediate reinstatement.
Additionally, the court found Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt due to a satirical social media post on April 27, 2025, which was deemed disrespectful to the judiciary. The court imposed a ₦5 million fine and ordered her to publish apologies in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page within seven days. This contempt ruling has complicated her case, as the Senate has conditioned her potential reinstatement on compliance with these directives.
Dissatisfied with the Federal High Court’s ruling, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn both the suspension and the contempt ruling. The appeal, which is still pending, has placed the matter in a legal limbo, with the Senate refusing to take any administrative action until the appellate court delivers its judgment.
Senate’s Stance and Internal Rules
The Senate’s rejection of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s resumption bid is consistent with its interpretation of the Federal High Court’s ruling and its own internal regulations. Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu has repeatedly emphasized that the court’s judgment did not contain a binding order mandating the senator’s immediate recall. “The Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order did not contain any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension,” Adaramodu stated in a press briefing.
The Senate’s position is further bolstered by its reliance on the principle of separation of powers, which limits judicial interference in legislative proceedings unless there is a clear constitutional violation. Legal precedents, such as AG Bendel v. AG Federation & 22 Ors and Unongo v. Aku, support the Senate’s argument that the judiciary cannot dictate the internal operations of the legislature without evidence of a breach of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
However, critics have pointed to inconsistencies between the Senate’s actions and its own standing rules. According to Order 67(4) of the Senate Standing Rules, the maximum duration for a suspension is 14 days. Legal analysts, including Victor Giwa and Ajibola Oduwole, have argued that the six-month suspension violates this rule, raising questions about the Senate’s adherence to its own regulations. Giwa, representing Akpoti-Uduaghan, described the Senate’s refusal to lift the suspension as a “flagrant disregard” for judicial pronouncements, while Oduwole suggested that the prolonged suspension could be overturned on appeal, though the process may outlast the suspension period itself.
Political and Social Implications
The ongoing dispute has far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s political landscape, touching on issues of legislative autonomy, gender dynamics, and the rights of constituents. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension has been criticized by civil society groups, women’s organizations, and her constituents in Kogi Central, who argue that it deprives them of their constitutional right to representation. A group of ten constituents, led by Ovavu Iliyasu, filed a separate lawsuit on April 4, 2025, challenging the suspension on these grounds, further highlighting the public’s stake in the matter.
The case has also sparked debates about gender and power in Nigerian politics. As one of only four female senators in the 109-member Senate, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension has drawn attention from organizations like Women in Business (WIMBIZ), which called for a fair and transparent resolution to the dispute. The allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Akpabio, though unproven, have fueled discussions about the treatment of women in politics and the challenges they face in male-dominated institutions.
Public reactions, as reflected in media reports and social media discussions, have been polarized. Supporters of Akpoti-Uduaghan view her as a courageous advocate for her constituents, unfairly targeted for her outspokenness. Critics, however, argue that her allegations against Akpabio and her subsequent social media post demonstrated a lack of decorum, justifying the Senate’s disciplinary action. The Senate’s insistence on compliance with the contempt ruling – including the payment of the ₦5 million fine and publication of apologies – has further complicated the narrative, with some seeing it as an attempt to assert institutional authority.
Broader Democratic Concerns
The Akpoti-Uduaghan case underscores broader tensions within Nigeria’s democratic system, particularly the balance between legislative autonomy and judicial oversight. The Senate’s authority to discipline its members is a critical aspect of maintaining order and decorum within the chamber, but the prolonged suspension of a senator raises questions about the potential abuse of this power to silence dissent. The Federal High Court’s ruling, while critical of the suspension’s duration, respected the principle of separation of powers, leaving the final resolution to the appellate court.
The case also highlights the challenges of ensuring continuous representation in a democracy. By suspending Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, the Senate has effectively deprived Kogi Central of its voice in the legislature, raising concerns about the impact on democratic participation and accountability. The ongoing legal battle at the Court of Appeal will likely set a precedent for how such disputes are resolved in the future, potentially clarifying the limits of legislative disciplinary powers and the judiciary’s role in overseeing them.
Conclusion
The Nigerian Senate’s rejection of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s bid to resume her legislative duties has prolonged a contentious legal and political dispute that touches on fundamental issues of democracy, representation, and institutional authority. By insisting that her suspension remains in force until the Court of Appeal rules, the Senate has underscored its commitment to its internal rules and the principle of sub judice, while critics argue that it is undermining the rights of Kogi Central’s constituents. As the legal process unfolds, the outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for Nigeria’s democratic institutions, the balance of power between the legislature and judiciary, and the broader discourse on gender and power in politics.
