Senate Blocks Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Return Despite Court Ruling

The Nigerian Senate has refused to reinstate Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, despite a Federal High Court ruling declaring her six-month suspension unconstitutional.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central, was suspended by the Senate in March 2025 for alleged misconduct. However, in a ruling delivered by Justice Binta Nyako on July 4, the Federal High Court held that her suspension was “excessive and violated her constitutional rights.”

Following the judgment, her legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Michael Numa, formally notified the Senate of her intention to resume legislative duties on July 15, 2025. The notification was sent via a letter dated July 11 and addressed to the Clerk of the National Assembly.

But in a reply dated July 14, the Senate rejected the move, stating there was no explicit court directive mandating her recall. The letter, signed by Charles Yoila, Director of Litigation and Counselling on behalf of the Clerk, stated:

“There’s no order made on the 4th day of July, 2025, by Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, for the Senate, President of the Senate or National Assembly to comply with.”

The Senate argued that the court merely offered a declaratory judgment, suggesting that the chamber may choose to exercise its power to recall her but was not compelled to do so.

Senate spokesperson, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, reinforced this stance, saying:

“The judgment did not include any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.”

Despite this, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team insists that the judgment is binding under Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution and demands her immediate reinstatement, citing the court’s finding that the Senate’s action violated her constitutional rights.

As of now, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan remains suspended, with the Senate maintaining that she lacks legal standing to resume her seat pending a formal decision from the chamber. The standoff raises constitutional questions about the limits of legislative authority in the face of judicial intervention.