Follow Us on Google
From Adesuwa Tsan, Abuja
The suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of Kogi Central and her attempt to resume duties after the expiration of six months has raised questions about the powers of the Senate, the role of the National Assembly management in the instrument of the Clerk of the National Assembly (CNA) and the binding effect of court judgments on legislative chambers.
On March 6, 2025, the Senate resolved to suspend Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months for alleged misconduct, following a series of exchanges between the senator and the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. The Red Chamber said she brought the institution to disrepute and breached its rules by accusing Akpabio of sexual advances and other matters. Based on recommendations of its Committee on Ethics, she was sent off for six months. At the end of the period, in a letter dated September 4, 2025, and addressed to the Clerk of the National Assembly, she notified the office of her decision to return to the chamber as the suspension time had elapsed.
The letter stated, “I was suspended by a resolution of the Senate on March 6, 2025, for a period of six months. That period has since lapsed. I hereby notify your office of my readiness to resume legislative functions in representation of the good people of Kogi Central, whom I am duty-bound to serve.”
Her legal team, M. J. Numa & Partners LLP, also wrote separately to the Clerk, insisting that the suspension had run its course and threatening legal action if she was denied access to her legislative functions.
In response, the CNA rejected the request, stating that the suspension matter was still before the Court of Appeal and that the Senate leadership had communicated its position that only a fresh Senate resolution or a definitive court order could alter her status.
Days later, following public outcry over the rejection of her notification of resumption, the National Assembly exonerated itself of any involvement in the suspension saga. In a press release dated September 15, 2025, signed by the Director of Information, Bullah Audu Bi-Allah, the office stated, “The Clerk does not possess the authority to review, reverse or interpret Senate decisions.”
The statement explained further, “It must be emphasised that the determination of whether Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan can resume her legislative duties as of right without any further or fresh resolution of the Senate following the expiration of her six months suspension lies solely with the Senate and not with the office of the Clerk to the National Assembly.”
Senate’s Position
The Senate is unwavering in its stance that it alone has the power to decide what measures to take in regulating itself. The leadership has maintained that suspensions are functions of plenary resolution and that no administrative office or external pressure can override such a decision. Senate spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu, at a workshop for Senate correspondents earlier on September 10, reiterated this point when he said, “The Senate operates strictly by its Standing Orders. Suspensions, disciplinary actions, or recalls are never the function of the Clerk. They are resolutions taken by senators, and they can only be vacated by senators.”
This reflects the Senate’s consistent interpretation of its powers under Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants each chamber of the National Assembly authority to regulate its own procedure.
Legal Challenge
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s prayers in a suit filed at the Federal High Court seeking nullification of her suspension included: A declaration that the suspension was unconstitutional, as it denied the people of Kogi Central representation in the Senate; an order setting aside the resolution of March 6, 2025; a perpetual injunction restraining the Senate from suspending her in future without constitutional backing.
The Federal High Court, however, declined to grant all the reliefs but among other things, pointedly declared that the suspension period was excessive. While recognising the principle of representation, the court held that the Senate has the power to set its disciplinary measures, but constituents should not be denied representation. Based on this, the lawmaker proceeded to the National Assembly to resume duties but was denied entry by security operatives who said they had not been informed of any contrary position other than the suspension in force.
Other News
In response to her move, the Senate said there was nothing in the court ruling to comply with as it acted within its Standing Orders 2023, as amended, in placing her under discipline. It also defended itself on the timeframe of the suspension. According to Order 66 (Rule 4) of the Senate Rules which guides suspensions (suspension after naming), “When a senator is named by the President of the Senate, if the offence is a minor one, the president of the Senate may order the senator to withdraw for the rest of the legislative day; but if the matter appears to the President of the Senate to be of a more serious nature, the President of the Senate shall put the question on motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that such suspension being for any time slated in the motion not exceeding 14 legislative days.”
The same Order 66, rule 8 (suspension from session when force necessary), states, “If a senator be suspended under the provisions of this rule, he shall be directed by the President of the Senate to withdraw. His suspension shall last until determined by the Senate.”
Not satisfied with the response, Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan lodged an appeal seeking clarification on the judgment which is still pending before the Court of Appeal.
Judiciary’s Position and Precedents in the Senate
Suspension of senators and subsequent litigation are not new in Nigeria. Courts have consistently ruled against prolonged suspensions of lawmakers. In Ovie Omo-Agege v. Senate (2018), Justice Nnamdi Dimgba held that “No legislative chamber, by whatever name called, has the authority to suspend a member for a period that deprives his or her constituents of representation.” This principle has been echoed in other judgments involving state legislatures. However, enforcement remains problematic, as the legislature insists that its disciplinary powers are matters of internal procedure under Section 60 of the Constitution.
Three cases provide context for precedence in the present situation. First, Ali Ndume (Borno South) was suspended for six months (90 legislative days) under the Sen. Bukola Saraki leadership in 2017. Ndume had asked the Senate to investigate public allegations of impropriety against Saraki and Sen. Dino Melaye. He challenged it in a Federal High Court where Justice Babatunde Quadri declared it illegal and ordered that he be paid all his outstanding salaries and allowances. He also set aside the suspension and ordered that the senator be allowed to resume duties. His reinstatement came through Senate resolution taken during a closed door session presided over by erstwhile Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu in plenary. Ndume served out his 90 days suspension.
Second, former Deputy Senate President Ovie Omo-Agege (2018) was suspended for 90 legislative days for “gross indiscipline” after he accused his fellow lawmakers of working against President Muhammadu Buhari by amending the Electoral Act to re-order the sequence of elections, and for taking the Senate to court. The Federal High Court ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional, declaring that no legislative chamber could deprive constituents of representation, that he couldn’t be punished for seeking help from a court. He added that the period exceeded its 14 days maximum time of suspension. He resumed without a Senate resolution lifting his suspension following the ruling.
Lastly, Abdul Ningi of Bauchi Central was in 2024 suspended for alleging that the N28.7 trillion 2024 budget was padded with N3.7 trillion by his colleagues in an interview. He was suspended on March 12, 2024, for three months but resumed two months and two weeks, May 28, before the expiration of his suspension. Senator Olamilekan Adeola, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, had invoked Orders 9, 10, 41 and 51 in moving a motion of privilege and matter of national importance against the allegation made in the interview.
A motion was moved at plenary by Senate Minority Leader, Senator Abba Moro and two others to permit him to resume sitting. Moro said while moving the motion, “The Senate minority leadership takes full responsibility for the actions of our colleague, Senator Abdul Ningi and apologises on his behalf.”
In each case, court rulings emphasised the constitutional right of citizens to representation. Yet, Senate compliance was inconsistent, depending on the disposition of the leadership of the assembly, but in each case, there was emphasis on legislative autonomy.
The Current Dispute
The disagreement in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case lies in interpretation of the Senate rules. Her legal team insists that the expiration of six months automatically restores her mandate. The Senate maintains that reinstatement requires a fresh resolution or a binding court order. Meanwhile, the Clerk has clarified that his office cannot take sides or enforce resumption independently of the Senate.
The National Assembly’s September 15 statement summed up this position, “The Clerk’s Office serves strictly as an administrative arm, providing support to the Senate in accordance with their resolutions, Standing Orders and the provisions of the Constitution. The Clerk is therefore not in a position to facilitate her resumption at this time.”
The case of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan highlights the recurring tension between parliamentary autonomy and judicial protection of rights. While courts have consistently ruled that prolonged suspensions violate constitutional representation, the Senate holds on to the supremacy of its Standing Orders and plenary resolutions. For the public, all eyes are on the Senate’s next move when it resumes plenary on Tuesday, September 23.
