Daniel Otera
Despite securing a favourable court judgment overturning her six-month suspension, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has yet to return to the Senate or fulfil key components of the ruling, raising questions over the legal and institutional frameworks that govern legislative accountability in Nigeria.
A Federal High Court in Abuja last Friday nullified the suspension imposed on the Kogi Central senator in March, describing it as unconstitutional, excessive, and a violation of her constituents’ rights to representation. The court also imposed a N5 million fine on the lawmaker for contempt of court, citing a satirical Facebook post deemed to have contravened an earlier gag order.
Justice Binta Nyako further directed Akpoti-Uduaghan to issue a public apology within seven days, to be published in two national dailies and reposted on her Facebook page. As of Wednesday, no such apology had been seen on her verified social media handle, and there was no evidence of publication in any major newspaper.
Although the senator had publicly declared her intention to resume legislative duties on Tuesday, her absence from plenary has sparked debate over whether the ruling is immediately enforceable in the absence of an enrolled judgment or Certified True Copy (CTC). Senate leadership insists that no formal action will be taken until the CTC of the judgment is received and reviewed.
Amid the legal stalemate, security was visibly intensified at the National Assembly on Tuesday. Incoming vehicles were subjected to stricter checks, and occupants were asked to explain their presence. Authorities denied that the heightened security was related to Akpoti-Uduaghan, but the timing drew attention, particularly in light of her earlier statement.
Tensions were further fuelled by a letter allegedly bearing the name of Paul Daudu, counsel to the Senate, which circulated widely on social media. The unsigned document purportedly advised her legal counsel, J.S. Okutepa (SAN), to restrain the senator from resuming legislative duties until the CTC of the judgment was formally obtained.
However, Daudu swiftly disowned the letter and denied authorship. In a Facebook post, he wrote:
“Dear members of the public, please ignore the purported open letter written to J.S. Okutepa SAN making the rounds on social media. It is unsigned and not issued by me. I do not know the source of that letter.”
He further described the use of his law firm’s name in the document as a misrepresentation, adding that Okutepa is “a father and mentor” to him in the legal profession.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension followed a heated plenary session during which she accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment a remark that led to rowdy scenes and what some civil society groups later described as politically motivated disciplinary measures.
Legal experts have long highlighted gaps in the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act, particularly its failure to provide specific procedures or timelines for suspending elected lawmakers. This legal vacuum has led to repeated court interventions challenging suspensions as unconstitutional overreach.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana (SAN), in a widely referenced opinion, argued that “no legislative house has the power to suspend a member even for one day”, insisting that such actions are not constitutionally supported. He cited Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees every constituency the right to continuous representation (Guardian).
A legal analysis published by Barristers.ng also stated, “There is nothing which provides any constitutional authority for the Assembly to punish any member by suspending such member,” arguing that any internal legislative rule conflicting with the Constitution is void.
While Section 21 of the current Act mentions disciplinary privileges, it lacks clarity on process, duration, and safeguards. As a result, courts have ruled against indefinite or prolonged suspensions, describing them as legally unsustainable. In 2018, courts overturned similar actions by the National Assembly, reinforcing the view that lawmakers had acted beyond their powers (Vanguard).
These unresolved legal ambiguities have contributed to the current uncertainty surrounding Akpoti-Uduaghan’s return, with the Senate leadership deferring to the awaited CTC of the court’s judgment before making any move.
In what appears to be a legislative response, the Senate has introduced a new bill seeking to amend the law. Titled Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (SB. 708), the bill was sponsored by Senator Shehu Kaka and passed first reading on Monday just four days after the court’s judgment.
The proposed legislation seeks to establish clearer procedures, timelines, and defined penalties for infractions by lawmakers. Though some observers believe the bill was hastily introduced in response to the court ruling, insiders within the Senate claim the amendment had been under review prior to the judgment.
As legal teams on both sides await the release of the CTC expected to offer guidance on how the judgment should be implemented Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan remains technically reinstated but institutionally restrained.
For constituents in Kogi Central, the ongoing deadlock has prolonged the absence of their senator since March, heightening concerns over constitutional representation. Several residents and civil society organisations have expressed frustration, arguing that the prolonged stalemate is denying the district a legislative voice at the federal level.
When her suspension was first announced, local leaders and advocacy groups described it as “unjust and unfair” to the people of Kogi Central, according to a report by Premium Times. The legal challenge filed by a group of constituents argued that the move violated their right to political participation as enshrined in Nigeria’s Constitution.
Following the Federal High Court ruling in July, which labelled the suspension “excessive” and reaffirmed her position in the Senate, calls for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s immediate reinstatement intensified. The court emphasised that the Senate’s action effectively disenfranchised her constituents, contrary to constitutional protections.
Despite these developments, uncertainty persists, as both arms of government the judiciary and the legislature appear locked in a cautious standoff.
Until the procedural requirements are resolved, Kogi Central remains without active representation.