The dispute surrounding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension took a new turn on Tuesday, when the Peoples Democratic Party and many Senior Advocates of Nigeria protested the Senate’s decision to prevent Natasha from returning when the upper house reconvenes on September 23.
Dr. Yahaya Danzaria, Acting Clerk to the National Assembly, advised Natasha in a letter dated September 4 that her six-month suspension issued on March 6 will continue in effect until the Court of Appeal rules on her lawsuit against the Senate.
“The matter remains sub judice, and until the judicial process is concluded, no administrative action can be taken to facilitate your resumption. You will be duly notified of the Senate decision on the matter as soon as it is resolved,” the letter stated.
The communication devastated the aspirations of Natasha, who, according to her counsel, Victor Giwa, had already begun arrangements to rejoin her colleagues after serving out the six-month sentence.
Natasha was suspended on March 6 after the Senate’s Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions Committee accepted a report accusing her of insubordination for refusing to relinquish her assigned place during plenary.
The verdict stripped her of her salary, assistants, and office privileges.
The senator has constantly stated that her suspension was politically motivated, citing a petition she filed charging Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment, which the Senate disregarded.
She fought the action in court, saying in April that she had obtained a favorable ruling.
However, Senate leadership claimed she would be punished for the entire six months.
In July, her dramatic effort to re-enter the chamber culminated in a standoff, with security personnel barring her admission despite protests from her supporters outside the National Assembly.
In response to the new letter, the PDP accused the Senate leadership of behaving in bad faith.
In a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba, the party branded the decision as a planned attempt by the APC-led Senate to silence opposition voices and deny Kogi Central residents of representation.
“The attempt to use the National Assembly establishment against an elected senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in gross violation of the Constitution and the Standing Rules of the Senate is highly provocative and constitutes a clear and present danger to democracy,” the statement read.
The party said that the revived move was part of a larger “creeping totalitarianism” under the APC-led Federal Government, and it asked that the Clerk of the National Assembly retract the letter promptly.
The PDP further linked the issue to Akpabio’s “history of harassment against women,” calling on the Senate President to clear his name rather than “intimidating” a female colleague.
The opposition party also urged the international community, human rights organizations, and democratic institutions to intervene, urging that Natasha be allowed to resume.
Senior Advocates of Nigeria claimed the Senate overreached by barring Akpoti-Uduaghan from returning to the upper chamber after serving her six-month suspension.
They contended that the reasoning of waiting for the outcome of the court case before enabling Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume was constitutionally incorrect and unjustified.
Adedayo Adedeji (SAN) contended that it was wise and constitutionally correct for Natasha to be permitted to resume her seat once her suspension time had expired.
This, Adedeji stated, will preserve the Senate’s dignity, respect its disciplinary powers, and ensure that the people of Kogi Central are not left without representation in violation of Sections 68 and 1(3) of the Constitution.
He opined that the suspension of Natasha raises a constitutional issue beyond internal discipline.
Adedeji said, “While Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the Senate to regulate its own procedure, Section 68 makes clear that a member can only vacate a seat in circumstances expressly provided by the Constitution. A temporary suspension must, therefore, not be used in a way that effectively denies constituents their right to representation.
“In Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly & Ors (FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025), Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, though declining jurisdiction on separation of powers, cautioned against excessive suspensions, noting that a six-month suspension, half a legislative year, undermines constitutional representation. Her Lordship observed as follows:
“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 intention of the law… The Senate has the power to… recall the plaintiff and at the same time allow her to represent the people who sent her there.”
Another SAN, Wale Balogun, spoke in support of Natasha’s readmission to the Senate after serving out her six-month ban.
Despite the pending case, Balogun stated that the Senate should honor constitutional democracy by not further depriving Natasha’s constituency of representation.
Balogun said, “I feel that the Senate should be magnanimous in the interest of a constitutional democracy. It’s not only about Senator Natasha. They should remember it’s about the good people of the Kogi Central senatorial district, and it’s about the constitutional democracy that we practice.
“So, candidly, I do not share the sentiment of the Senate with respect to that position. Now, we are talking of two different scenarios. The first scenario is a suspension by the Senate, which I want to discuss with you.
“So, it’s a suspension from the Senate; that’s the first primary issue, which is for a defined period of time, for six months. The second issue is the fact that suspension is now a subject matter of litigation that is ongoing.
“So, these are two separate things. Now, she has, by exclusion of time, which is the six months as prescribed, whether rightly or wrongly, the subject matter of which is pending in court.
“So, by exclusion of that time, the woman has now spent six months, and now the six months are over. So, naturally, that brings an end to those six months, because, in other words, she has served the suspension.”
Referring to the Bode George case, Balogun wondered if Natasha would be suspended indefinitely, even if the court fight lasted months, if not years.
“The issue that is in court is a separate case. It’s a secondary issue arising from this primary issue. So, the court can still uphold her suit to say, “No, you didn’t suspend her rightly.” You know, they took away all her allowances, salary, and others. The decision of the court will now give life to it.
“So, since the suspension has ended, she is supposed to be able to go back to the Senate, but the lawfulness or otherwise is still a subject matter that will continue in court. Even though she has spent the time, just like the prisoner who has spent his time. But whether he’s been wrongfully convicted now, just like this senator, or whether she was wrongfully suspended, it will continue. The court will now pronounce one way,” Balogun said.
In the same vein, Paul Obi (SAN) described holding Akpoti-Uduaghan outside the Senate chambers after her six-month suspension as inappropriate, unreasonable, overreaching, and excessive.
“I don’t think that will be an action that is justifiable under the law, because you have put the woman on suspension for six months. She has tried to get the courts to reverse that. She has tried to get public opinion, sympathies, and national communities to reverse that.
“You have stopped your guns and insisted on six months. Six months are drawing near now. And you want to start using the courts to extend, or the judicial process, to extend that six months.
“That would be ultra vires in the powers of the Senate. I don’t think they will have that constitutional power to do that, and I think that would be overreaching and overkill. The woman has served her punishment for what she did, by your own rules and by your own prescriptions. Allow her to return to the Senate to do her job for her constituency. They have no justification for that attempted extension of her suspension, because that’s what it is. They want to extend the suspension surreptitiously. That’s not right.”
In the same vein, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) said the Senate was overreaching itself in not allowing Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume in the Senate until the case is determined by the court.
Adegboruwa opined that an indirect extension beyond the six-month suspension portrays the Senate as being vindictive and petty.
Adegboruwa said, “I think the Senate is overreaching itself with this position. First, the suspension of the Senator was for six months, which was limited by time. Once the six months expire, she should be allowed to resume her seat in the Senate automatically. Failure to allow her to resume is indirectly extending the suspension beyond six months, without a valid resolution of the Senate to that effect. There is no such resolution at the moment. The case pending in court cannot be the reason to extend her suspension illegally.
“Second, the court case being referred to relates to the six-month suspension, as to its validity and constitutionality. The appeal flowing from that case is also limited in scope to the six-month suspension. Anything to the contrary will portray the Senate as being vindictive and petty.
“Third, the point was made by the trial court that the period of suspension should not exceed the usual sitting days of the Senate for a session. To refuse her resumption after the six months will be to make the suspension indefinite.”
He contended that the suspension’s goal had been met and that denying Natasha resumption deprived millions of constituents of representation.
“Since this matter relates to the rights and privileges of a whole constituency comprising millions of voters, the Senate should do the needful by allowing Senator Natasha to resume forthwith.
“She has already served the six months in full, and any determination by the court can only relate to the validity of the suspension and her entitlements, but certainly, the sessions of the Senate that she missed due to her suspension cannot be reversed forever. In essence, the purpose of the suspension having been fulfilled, no useful purpose will be served to deny her from resuming duties as a senator,” Adegboruwa said.
Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) disagreed, arguing that the Senate and Natasha should continue to defend the case.
“On Natasha, the last time I checked, I thought I saw both parties in court with appeals and cross appeals. This means that both parties should fight their appeals and await the court’s pronouncement.”
