The standoff between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Nigerian Senate is growing more intense and more public. Last week, in a dramatic turn of events, the embattled lawmaker was physically blocked from entering the National Assembly complex on Tuesday, 22 July 2025, just days after the Federal High Court ruled that the legal provisions on which her suspension was based were excessive and were not in line with constitutional provisions.
In the judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako, the Federal High Court held that the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Senate Rules and Section 14(2) of the Legislative House (Powers & Privileges) Act which allow for indefinite suspension of legislative members are at variance with the intendment of the Constitution. Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017 authorizes legislative houses to suspend members found in contempt, depriving them of access and compensation, though the duration must not outlast the current legislative session. It states as follows:
14(2): Where a member commits a contempt of Legislative House, the Legislative House may by resolution reprimand such person or suspend him from service of the Legislative House, without pay, for such period as may be determined by the House, but not to the end of a legislative session.
The judge however, found her in contempt of court for a Facebook post that breached an earlier gag order on public comments about the case. The penalty was a ₦5 million fine and a mandatory apology on social media and in two national dailies.
Following the judgment, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan wrote to the National Assembly informing it of her intention to resume her duties following the Court judgment. However, in a July 14th letter to her legal team, the National Assembly’s Director of Litigation, Charles Yoila, described the ruling as “declaratory” meaning, in their view, it’s a suggestion, not a command. The letter claims the judgment merely acknowledged that her constituents deserve representation but didn’t legally compel her return. Whether or not the suspension is lifted, the Senate says, is entirely at its discretion. No formal debate has taken place on this yet, and Senate President Akpabio has stayed silent.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
“On the issue of denial of the Plaintiff to the representation of her senatorial district without inspiring the function of the NASS, I will give and say (sic) due to the gravity of the issue, I have read in its entirety, the Senate Rules under which the Plaintiff was suspended thus denying the representation of her senatorial districts.
I believe that the Constitution, Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act nor the Senate Rules will not intend for that to happen. I have read with interest, chapter IX (8) of the Senate Rules and Section 14(2) of the Legislative House (Powers & Privileges) Act allows the Senate to suspend a senator until a time determined by the Senate (ad infinitum) while S.14(2) allows for suspension of a member (Senator) in similar terms even without pay.
I do not think the Constitution envisages this.
A Senator is expected to represent his people in either Legislative house for a specific number of days per session. If any suspension is unwarranted, then I opine that the Act and the Senate Rules should also be specific and not live (sic) it at large. A suspension cannot exceed the requisite number of days the member should sit. The Constitution says a legislative year is 181 days and the House should sit for this number of days. This makes it at least 36.2 weeks in a year which is a session. To suspend a member for 6 months means suspension for 180 days and this is half the number of days the member is expected to sit in the House representing his people.
I do not think this is the intention of the framer of the law. To make a law that has no end is excessive and cannot be the intendment of the law. I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to review this provision of the Senate Rules and even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act both for being overreaching. The Senate has the power to and I believe should recall the plaintiff and allow her to same-time, represent the people who sent her there to represent them“.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has fired back, heading to the Court of Appeal to contest the contempt ruling. Her legal team, bolstered by several Senior Advocates of Nigeria, argues that the court ruling was procedurally flawed and showed judicial bias. Their argument is that the court lacked the authority to convict her for contempt committed outside the courtroom without a separate trial, as required by Nigerian law, including under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.
Amid the legal wrangling, another wrinkle has emerged: confusion over who the court-ordered apology is actually meant for. A Senate spokesperson earlier claimed it was directed at the Senate, but the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment confirms that the apology is owed to the court, not the Senate. This distinction matters as critics argue it shows the Senate is deliberately stretching the facts to avoid reinstating her.
But beneath the courtroom drama is a deeper political battle. Akpoti-Uduaghan was first appointed Chair of the Local Content Committee, only to be reassigned in February 2025 to the Diaspora and NGOs Committee. That reshuffle engineered by Senate President Akpabio is widely seen as the spark that lit the fuse.
Her suspension came swiftly after she went public with the harassment allegation. Her salary and security details were withdrawn, her access to the National Assembly was blocked, and the Diaspora and NGOs Committee chairmanship position was handed to Senator Aniekan Bassey. The optics have raised serious concerns about due process and whether this is less about rules and more about retaliation.
Outside the Senate, opinions are split. Some argue the chamber is defending its internal order. Others see a troubling abuse of power, a case of silencing a dissenting voice and punishing political defiance. Either way, the case has reignited national conversations around legislative accountability, the limits of Senate authority, and the rights of constituents to not be deprived of representation.