*The Nigerian Senate, in the National Assembly, Abuja, has enumerates conditions for reinstatement of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District

Isola Moses | 绿帽献妻

The Nigerian Senate, in the National Assembly (NASS), Abuja, FCT, has listed certain conditions for reinstatement of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, in Kogi State.

A Federal High Court, in Abuja, has nullified the Senate’s six-month suspension earlier handed down to her.

绿帽献妻 reports Justice Binta Nyako, in her judgment Friday, ordered the Upper Legislative Chamber to reinstate Akpoti-Uduaghan, describing her suspension from legislative activities as “excessive”.

Why Senate suspended Akpoti-Uduaghan for 6 months

It is recalled that suspended Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, March 2025, on a national television live show had accused Senate President Goodluck Akpabio of punishing her for rejecting his alleged sexual advances.

The Red Chamber of NASS later suspended the Peoples Democratic Party’s Senator for six months over alleged gross misconduct, resulting from her face-off with Senate President Akpabio.

The face-off with regard to a sitting arrangement resulted had generated much brouhaha on the floor of the Senate, and among several Nigerians.

Subsequently, the Senator submitted a petition to the Senate, alleged that she was sexually harassed by Akpabio, but the Senate President has since denied the allegation.

The suspended Federal lawmaker, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, challenged her suspension from the Senate in court.

In her judgement on the delivered Friday, Justice Nyako faulted the provision of Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Rules, and Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers & Privileges Act, declaring both as overreaching.

The Federal High Court emphasised the two legislations failed to specify the maximum period that a serving lawmaker could be suspended from office as a Senator of the Federal Republic.

Justice Nyako clarified though the Senate has the authority to discipline its members, such disciplinary actions must not strip Nigerians of representation in the National Assembly.

The Judge also ruled that since the Senate was constitutionally required to sit for only 181 days in a legislative year, Akpoti-Uduaghan鈥檚 180-day suspension amounted to denying the people of Kogi Central effective participation in national governance.

She further stated: 鈥淭he court is not saying that the Senate lacks the power to sanction a member. “However, such sanctions must not negate the constitutional right of constituents to be represented in parliament.”

Court imposes N5m fine on Natasha for contempt

The court, however, found Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt over a satirical apology she had posted on her Facebook page April 27, 2025.

Justice Nyako held that after reviewing the post and the application before her instituted by the third respondent, she was satisfied that it was linked to the suspension matter before the court and therefore found the plaintiff guilty of contempt.

The court, therefore, ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan to publish an apology in two national dailies, and on her Facebook page within seven days.

The Judge equally imposed a N5 million fine on Natasha.

Senate鈥檚 remarks on court ruling on Natasha’s reinstatement

The Senate, in regard to the judgment, said the Red Chamber would not immediately reinstate the embattled Senator. Why?

Senator Yemi Adaramodu, Spokesman of the Senate, stated that the court judgment did not override the Senate鈥檚 constitutional powers to discipline its members in any way.

Adaramodu said: 鈥淲hich judgment are we appealing when they (the court) said the Senate has the right to discipline its erring members?

“The court has not ousted the Senate鈥檚 statutory right to punish any erring Senator.”

He also noted: 鈥淚t was established that the senator in question erred.

“The court has already told her to go and do some things, like restitution.

“So, after the restitution, the Senate will now sit again and consider the content of that restitution, and that will inform our next line of action.”

The Red Chamber further explain that the Federal Legislature would only reconvene to deliberate on the matter after Akpoti-Uduaghan had complied with the court鈥檚 directives.

Adaramodu averred: 鈥淭he onus is no more on us now; it is already on her doorstep to go and apologise.

“Once she does that, then the Senate will sit and determine how to deal with her matter.”

He said: 鈥淭he first reaction now will not be from us, the court has ruled.

“So, once she takes the step to redress and does what the court has directed her to do, then the Senate will sit and look at the content of her reaction as prescribed by the court.”

Judgement a ‘partial victory’ for Senate, says Counsel

Following the court judgement, Paul Dauda, SAN, Senate counsel, described the ruling as a “partial victory” for the Upper Legislative Chamber.

In respect of the issue of civil contempt arising from social media posts Natasha made during the case, Dauda said: 鈥淭he first application filed by the Senate, that no social media posts should have been made, was decided in our favour.

“The court directed that the satirical apology be taken down, and that a proper apology be published in two national dailies.

“Additionally, damages of five million Naira were awarded to be paid to the court.鈥�

On the substantive ruling regarding the suspension, Dauda noted that the Senate鈥檚 authority to discipline its members was not in dispute.

He stated: 鈥淚t appears the court affirmed that the Senate, as an institution, has the right to discipline its members.

“While members are elected to represent constituencies, they are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the Senate鈥檚 Standing Rules.”

Shedding more light on the ruling, the Senate legal counsel also explained that the court did not order Akpoti-Uduaghan鈥檚 reinstatement, but merely suggested that the Senate could consider recalling her.

Dauda said: 鈥淭here was no relief asking for the suspension to be lifted. The judge only made what we call an ‘obiter dictum’, a non-binding remark, that the suspension may have been excessive.

“We will consult with our colleagues, read the full judgment, and respond accordingly.”

Kindly Share This Story