The dispute involving the Senate and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents the Kogi Central senatorial district, has entered a new stage as the upper chamber of the Nigerian legislature has refused to reinstate her to the chamber, despite a court order. The National Assembly stated in a letter responding to the Kogi senator’s notification of
The dispute involving the Senate and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents the Kogi Central senatorial district, has entered a new stage as the upper chamber of the Nigerian legislature has refused to reinstate her to the chamber, despite a court order.
The National Assembly stated in a letter responding to the Kogi senator’s notification of her intention to resume her constitutional duties in the red chamber that the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja does not require the Senate or its leadership to reinstate her, but instead provides an advisory injunction.
In a letter dated July 15, 2025, signed by Charles Yoila, Director of Litigation and Counselling, on behalf of the Clerk to the National Assembly, lawmakers stated that the ruling delivered by Justice Nyako on July 4 was not considered an enforceable directive. As a result, the Senate maintains the authority to make decisions as it deems appropriate.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has informed the Senate of her intention to resume legislative duties after the Federal High Court ruled her Senate suspension unconstitutional, noting that it denied her constituents representation.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, in a letter dated July 11 to the Clerk of the National Assembly through her lawyer, Michael Numa (SAN), demanded immediate steps to facilitate her return based on the court’s judgment by Justice Binta Nyako.
In his response, Yoila clarified that the judgment did not order the lawmaker’s reinstatement and noted the Senate had not yet decided on the issue.
“For our summary of the judgement order, there is no order made on the 4th day of July, 2025 by Hon. Justice B.F.N. Nyako for the Senate, President of the Senate or National Assembly to comply with. The declaratory judgment merely advised the Defendants to exercise their power to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and allow her to resume representing the people who sent her to represent them.”
The National Assembly, therefore, urged the Senator’s legal team to exercise patience and await a final decision from the Senate.
“Accordingly, you may wish to advise your client to await the action of the Senate to exercise their power of recall as advised by the court and in terms with the judgement of the Honourable Court, please.”
Recall that on June 4th, the Federal High Court invalidated the Senate’s disciplinary action against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing the Kogi Central senatorial district, which had resulted in her suspension for six months. The court directed the Senate to recall her to continue with her constitutional duties.
The court also 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.
The judge imposed a fine of N5 million on Senator Akpoti for violating an existing court order prohibiting any of the parties involved in the suit from making public statements about the ongoing case.
Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu stated that the Senate will only act after receiving the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the court judgement to confirm if reinstatement is required.
Days later, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the judgment of the Federal High Court, challenging the jurisdiction and the ruling of the lower court on the matter.
The Senate President through his lawyer, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, insisted that the Federal High Court erred in law and committed a miscarriage of justice by ruling against the Senate, adding that the court lacked the authority to intervene in the Senate’s disciplinary process, especially as the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petitions had not completed its investigation at the time the suit was instituted.
Background
This development is against the backdrop of the protracted feud in the Senate between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who protested against the change of her sitting position, without her consent and prior notice, leading to disruption in the plenary session as she openly disagreed with the leadership.
While the leadership of the Senate tried to justify the relocation of seats as some of the minority lawmakers were already moving to the majority wing of the Senate chamber, hence the readjustment of sitting positions, Senator Akpoti was not convinced. But she accused the Senate President of denying her the privilege to speak during the plenary, leading to a rowdy session.
Senator Akpoti then went on national television to accuse the Senate President of sexual harassment, claiming that he was witch-hunting her because she had previously turned down his advances.
The matter was referred to the Senate disciplinary committee after Senator Akpabio refuted the sexual accusation against him. The committee ruled that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition was dead on arrival because of procedural infractions and legal restrictions, but the female senator resubmitted it the next day.
Despite the resubmission, the Senate exercised its authority and suspended the lawmaker for six months, defying an existing court injunction that barred the Senate from taking such action until the final ruling on the matter.
The matter sparked heated debate among members of the public and stakeholders, who accused the Senate of bias and favouritism for the Senate President on the issue, leaving no room for transparency and fairness in addressing it.
