… says It Will Deprive Her Constituents of Representation The Federal High Court in Abuja has reviewed the Senate’s disciplinary process involving Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senator for Kogi Central, which resulted in her suspension for six months. The court directed the Senate to reinstate her, allowing her to resume her constitutional responsibilities. Justice Binta Nyako Friday
… says It Will Deprive Her Constituents of Representation
The Federal High Court in Abuja has reviewed the Senate’s disciplinary process involving Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senator for Kogi Central, which resulted in her suspension for six months. The court directed the Senate to reinstate her, allowing her to resume her constitutional responsibilities.
Justice Binta Nyako Friday ruled on suit FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, brought by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan against the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate President, and Senator Neda Imasuem (Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct), seeking to overturn her suspension.
The court described the senate’s action as excessive and overreaching, adding that the provision in the Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Rules, as well as Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers, and Privileges Act, would keep the senator away for a long time and, as a result, would deprive her constituency members of their deserved representation in the senate.
Justice Nyako added that the two pieces of legislation the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions relied on to suspend Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan failed to specify the maximum period that a serving lawmaker could be suspended from office.
The judge, on the other hand, validated the senate’s right to take disciplinary action against any of the erring members; she put a caveat that such a punishment must not be excessive to the point of depriving such a lawmaker of the duty to represent their constituents. The judge maintained that such a disciplinary action against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan could lead to a lack of representation for her constituent members.
The court also justified the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio’s decision to deny Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was not in her official seat allotted to her, the opportunity to speak on the floor of the house during the plenary session.
The judge maintained that the Senate has the right to change lawmakers’ seats based on its discretion and ordered the Kogi senator to apologise to the Senate for flaunting the rules.
However, Justice Nyako equally dismissed Senator Akpabio’s argument, claiming that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which he said bordered on an internal affair of the Senate.
Earlier, in the ruling on the case filed by Senator Akpabio against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for writing a satirical apology to him on Facebook, claiming that the post violated the order of the court, the judge imposed a fine of N5 million on Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for violating an existing court order prohibiting any of the parties involved in the suit from making public statements about the ongoing case.
Consequently, the judge ordered her to publish an apology in the two national newspapers and on her Facebook within seven days.
This development follows a prolonged Senate dispute involving Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who disrupted a plenary session after objecting to her seat change, which was made without her consent or prior notice.
Senate leaders cited minority lawmakers moving to the majority side as the reason for changing seats, but Senator Akpoti remained unconvinced. She accused the Senate President of not allowing her to speak, which caused a commotion during the session.
Senator Akpoti accused the Senate President on national television of sexual harassment and alleged retaliation after she rejected his advances.
Senator Akpabio denied the sexual allegation, and the Senate committee dismissed Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition for procedural reasons; however, she resubmitted it the next day.
The Senate suspended the lawmaker for six months, despite a court injunction prohibiting such action until a final ruling was made.
The issue generated discussion among members of the public and stakeholders, some of whom expressed concerns regarding the Senate’s impartiality and called for greater transparency and fairness in its handling.
