Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, was barred from entering the National Assembly on Tuesday despite a valid court order supporting her recall. Her convoy was stopped at the outer gate of the National Assembly in Abuja. She proceeded on foot but was then halted by security at the inner gate. The Kogi State senator
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, was barred from entering the National Assembly on Tuesday despite a valid court order supporting her recall. Her convoy was stopped at the outer gate of the National Assembly in Abuja. She proceeded on foot but was then halted by security at the inner gate.
The Kogi State senator previously stated her intention to resume legislative duties today, despite the National Assembly’s position that her reinstatement had not been authorised by the court judgement.
Senator Akpoti-Uduagan is one of only four women in the Senate, with 109 members.
Amid the ongoing dispute between Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Senate, her arrival prompted an increase in security presence at the main gate of the National Assembly. Security personnel included members of the police, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), the State Security Services (SSS), and the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Upon arriving at the National Assembly complex in a black vehicle accompanied by her supporters, including famous activist Aisha Yesufu, Senator Akpoti-Uduagan was halted by security personnel, who maintained that she was not permitted to enter the premises.
While some of her convoy and supporters turned back, the Kogi State Senator continued into the complex despite heavy security, receiving cheers from her remaining supporters as she approached the legislative building.
Last week, the National Assembly responded to the Kogi Senator’s request to resume her duties by stating that the Abuja Federal High Court’s judgement was advisory and does not require the Senate or its leadership to reinstate her.
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, the lawmakers clarified that the ruling delivered by Justice Nyako on July 4 does not constitute an enforceable directive. Consequently, the Senate retains the authority to make decisions it deems appropriate.
This follows Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s letter notifying the National Assembly management of her intention to resume legislative duties after the Federal High Court ruled her suspension by the Senate unconstitutional and stated that it deprived her constituents of representation in the Senate.
In a letter dated July 11 addressed to the Clerk of the National Assembly through her legal representative Michael Numa (SAN), Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan requested actions to facilitate her return by the court judgement delivered by Justice Binta Nyako.
In his response to the lawmaker, Yoila clarified that the judgement did not include an order for reinstatement. He further stated that the Senate had not yet reached a decision on the matter.
“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 judgement 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.”
“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.”
On June 4th, the Federal High Court ruled that the Senate’s six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (Kogi Central) was improper and ordered her reinstatement to resume her constitutional duties.
The court found the Senate’s action to be excessive, noting that Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Rules and Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers, and Privileges Act would prolong the senator’s absence and deny her constituency fair representation.
The judge issued a fine of N5 million to Senator Akpoti for breaching a court order that restricted all parties in the case from making public comments about the proceedings.
Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu stated the Senate will not act until it receives the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgement to confirm whether reinstatement is required.
Several days later, Senate President Godswill Akpabio filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal to contest the Federal High Court’s judgement regarding its jurisdiction and ruling on the case.
The Senate President, through his lawyer Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, argued that the Federal High Court lacked authority to intervene in the Senate’s disciplinary process and erred by ruling against the Senate before its committee had finished investigating.
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 determined that procedural infractions and legal restrictions rendered Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition ineffective, yet she resubmitted it the following 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.
