Ifeoma Ononye
When the Nigerian Senate suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (PDP-Kogi Central) for six months in March 2025, many thought that by September; when the suspension expires; things might return to “normal.” Instead, what has become clear is that the consequences of that punitive measure are not undone with the passage of time and that her travails are still on.
The Senate, through the Clerk of the National Assembly (CNA), Dr. Yahaya Danzaria, stated that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot yet resume her duties despite the expiration of her six-month suspension.
The senator, however, has challenged this position and taken up the matter for redress.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, during the week issued a four-day ultimatum to the Clerk of the National Assembly (CNA), Dr. Yahaya Danzaria, demanding that he facilitates her immediate resumption at the Senate or face contempt proceedings and disciplinary sanctions.
Through her legal counsel, Chief Michael Jonathan Numa (SAN), Akpoti-Uduaghan rejected a September 4 letter from the CAN, which stated that her suspension remains in effect pending the outcome of the Senate’s appeal at the Court of Appeal.
In a strongly worded reply dated September 11, the lawmaker accused the CNA of acting ultra vires by obstructing her return to the chamber despite the expiration of the six-month suspension imposed on her by the Senate on March 6, 2025.
“Your reliance on the sub judice rule is a grave misapplication of its scope. The doctrine is, at best, a self-imposed restraint on parliamentary debate concerning matters pending before the courts. It cannot be a lawful basis to deny administrative compliance with judicial orders or to frustrate the exercise of constitutional rights after the expiration of a fixed-term suspension,” the letter stated.
Akpoti-Uduaghan warned that failure to comply by Monday, September 15, would compel her to initiate legal and disciplinary action against the CNA in both his personal and official capacity. She said sanctions could include committal for contempt of court, disciplinary measures for breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and liability for instigating breach of the peace with implications for national security, among other remedies available under the law.
The Senator’s lawyers argued that even if the suspension were valid, it lapsed on September 6, 2025, and cannot be unilaterally extended.
“Any attempt to prevent her resumption amounts to punishing her twice for the same alleged misconduct,” her counsel stated.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended on March 6 over allegations of misconduct. On July 4, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court voided the suspension, describing it as unlawful and unconstitutional, and ordered her reinstatement.
However, the Senate leadership appealed the judgment, a development the CNA cited as the basis for withholding administrative action.
In his September 4 letter, Dr. Danzaria wrote: “The matter therefore remains sub judice, and until the judicial process is concluded and the Senate formally reviews the suspension in the light of the court’s pronouncement, no administrative action can be taken by this office to facilitate your resumption.”
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team maintains that pending appeals cannot justify an indefinite extension of a suspension that has already expired.
The stalemate sets the stage for a possible constitutional face-off, as the Senator insists she will not hesitate to commence contempt proceedings if she is not allowed to return to the red chamber next week.
Uduaghan’s suspension followed a dispute in the Senate, after Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan refused to move from her assigned seat during a plenary session on February 20, 2025, and made statements and motions without recognition.
She also raised serious allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
The Senate Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee dismissed her petition against Akpabio for procedural defects — among them, that the petition was signed personally by her, violating Senate rules.
While the formal suspension lasted its full term, its impacts were immediate and broad: She was barred from all legislative activities, prohibited from Senate premises, her office was locked, her security details withdrawn.
Salaries and allowances were suspended for her; her aides were likewise affected — though later rulings preserved their pay under pressure from some Senators.
Public perception and political momentum shifted; many questioned whether the suspension was legitimately about misconduct, or whether it served to silence her harassment claim.
Now that the six-month suspension has officially ended, several unresolved matters continue to trouble her, and many believe the broader system as well:
