 |
| Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan arriving at court amid media attention in Kogi State |
Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan will appear before the Federal High Court on Tuesday, June 3, 2025, as summoned by Justice Obiora Egwuatu. This follows her six-month suspension from the Senate after a heated seat dispute on February 20, 2025. Her case has drawn national attention for its legal and political stakes.
Her summons marks a new chapter in a battle pitting the Nigerian Senate against judicial oversight. Supporters see her court date as a chance to challenge what they call injustice. Critics argue her suspension upheld Senate rules on decorum and order.
On February 20, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan clashed with Senate President Godswill Akpabio over her assigned seat. She refused to occupy a new seat. She accused Akpabio of sexual harassment that day.
Her petition on harassment was dismissed for procedural errors. She later refiled via a constituent’s signature. Minutes after resubmitting, the Senate moved to suspend her. Her objections fell on deaf ears.
She remains one of only four women out of 109 senators. Her suspension highlighted low female representation. It reignited debates on gender and power in Nigerian politics.
On March 6, 2025, the Senate Ethics Committee recommended a six-month suspension for Akpoti-Uduaghan. It cited “gross misconduct” for speaking without permission, changing her seat, and alleged abusive comments.
The Senate vote stripped her of office access, staff allowances, and security. She could not claim her Senate stipend for six months. The Senate claimed this disciplinary step was necessary to enforce order.
Critics called the move draconian. They pointed out that no law exists for suspending a senator. They argued the action violated constitutional rights for due process.
On March 4, 2025, Justice Obiora Egwuatu granted an ex-parte injunction. It barred the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from probing or punishing Akpoti-Uduaghan pending full hearing.
The court held that any disciplinary action while the suit was pending would be “null and void.” This provided temporary relief to the senator. Her legal team used affidavits of service to prove proper notification.
The Senate ignored the restraining order and proceeded with her suspension a day later. This prompted Akpoti-Uduaghan to file for contempt of court against Senate leadership.
On March 19, 2025, Justice Egwuatu vacated his earlier order. He allowed the Senate’s disciplinary process to continue. The judge found that the Senate’s appeal had merit to lift the injunction.
Once the injunction was lifted, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension took full effect. The Senate justified its action, citing adherence to its Standing Orders. Some legal experts decried the Senate’s disregard for judicial restraint.
On March 10, 2025, the court adjourned the hearing of her suit to March 25. All parties were directed to file responses. Counsel for Senate leadership argued they had not been served. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s team provided affidavits showing service had occurred.
On March 25, 2025, Justice Egwuatu recused himself over bias allegations. He transmitted the case file for reassignment. The Court of Appeal set April 7, 2025 to hear Akpabio’s appeal seeking to stay proceedings.
With her injunction lifted and her suit unresolved, Akpoti-Uduaghan endured her suspension. Meanwhile, her constituents marched in protest. They demanded her reinstatement and decried the Senate’s move as unconstitutional.
On June 2, 2025, the Federal High Court issued a fresh summons directing Akpoti-Uduaghan to appear on Tuesday, June 3. The court cited unresolved contempt proceedings and her motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.
Her appearance will cover her motions against Senate President Akpabio and the Clerk of the National Assembly. She seeks damages for alleged contempt and breach of court order. This hearing will test the Senate’s legislative immunity claims.
Her legal team noted the summons as proof that the judiciary continues to assert jurisdiction. They view this as a chance to challenge the Senate’s alleged defiance of rule of law.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025. It seeks (1) a declaration that her suspension is unconstitutional and void; (2) an interlocutory injunction against Senate actions until final judgment; and (3) damages for contempt of court.
Senate leadership will argue for legislative immunity. They will claim internal Senate rules govern discipline, not the courts. They may cite Section 4, Sub-Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants legislative privileges.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s team will argue that no constitutional clause allows indefinite suspension of a sitting senator. They will stress that her constituents have been denied representation since March.
Her constituents have repeatedly condemned her suspension. On March 23, 2025, hundreds marched in Lokoja, singing in the Ebira language and demanding her reinstatement. They called the Senate’s actions unjust.
The Concerned Constituents of Kogi Central declared her suspension “illegal” and a violation of voters’ rights. They warned against fraudulent recall efforts. They insisted she remains their legitimate representative until 2027.
SERAP (Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project) also demanded her immediate reinstatement. They called the six-month suspension “patently unlawful” and a breach of freedom of expression.
Kogi youths echoed similar sentiments. They criticized the Senate for disrespecting Kogi Central. They called for gender reforms and better representation for women in politics.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio defended the suspension as a necessary enforcement of Senate rules. He claimed her conduct was against decorum and order. He argued that senators must respect hierarchy and chamber rules.
Majority Leader Opeyemi Bamidele said her suspension would teach her to “learn Senate rules.” He questioned what she would gain by confronting the Senate President. He claimed no one is above Senate procedure.
The Senate Ethics Committee maintained it acted within its mandate. It cited Senate Standing Order 2023. It noted that her harassment petition was dismissed for violating procedural rules.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria West Idahosa labeled the Senate’s defiance as “damaging” to rule of law. He cited Section 4, Sub-Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution, stating that suspension lacked legal basis.
Atedo Peterside, founder of Anap Foundation, condemned the suspension as disrespectful to her constituents. He said the Senate leadership knowingly acted ultra vires.
Mansur Soro, a House member from Bauchi State, called for a constitutional amendment to regulate suspension of lawmakers. He argued the absence of rules invites arbitrary action.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s ordeal highlights sparse female representation in Nigeria’s 10th Senate. Women occupy only 4 out of 109 seats. Critics link her case to systemic gender bias in politics.
Her suspension removed one of the few female voices from legislative debates. Advocacy groups say this worsens the gender gap. They argue that women face discrimination even within Senate ranks.
Critics like Chioma Agwuegbo of TechHerNG stated the ethics committee displayed bias. She said the handling of her sexual harassment petition exposes gender inequality.
Political tensions in Kogi Central predate this crisis. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s election in 2023 surprised many due to her grassroots appeal. She campaigned on social inclusion and accountability.
Members of rival parties have tried to recall her. They failed to gather enough signatures. She enjoys strong support from Ebira youths and women’s groups.
Local political brokers view her defiance of Akpabio as a challenge to established powers. Some accuse her of grandstanding. Yet her base praises her courage and principled stand.
No clause in the 1999 Constitution explicitly allows suspension of a senator. Experts say impeachment is the only constitutional tool for removal. They argue the Senate overstepped its authority.
Mansur Soro proposed amending the Constitution to define suspension protocols. He noted the need for clear rules to prevent arbitrary action by Senate leadership.
Opponents claim that suspension is inherent in Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act. They maintain internal rules suffice for discipline.
SERAP argued that withholding her salary and barring her identity as a senator violates her fundamental rights. They cited Section 39 of the Constitution on freedom of expression and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Legal scholars warned that allowing internal discipline without external oversight risks abuse of power. They stressed that separation of powers demands judicial review of legislative actions.
Human rights groups pointed to her forced silence as a breach of democratic representation. They urged the judiciary to uphold citizens’ rights to be heard by their elected officials.
If the court rules in her favor, it could curtail Senate autonomy in disciplining members. This sets a precedent for judicial check on internal legislative processes.
Senate supporters warn that too much judicial interference could hamper legislative independence. They fear it will open floodgates for lawsuits over other internal matters.
Legal experts counter that constitutionalism demands checks and balances. They say no body is above the law, not even the Senate.
If the court upholds the Senate’s suspension, Akpoti-Uduaghan remains barred until September 2025. Her suit would likely be dismissed as lacking merit.
If the court rules in her favor, the Senate may have to rescind her suspension and reinstate her privileges immediately. It could expose Senate leaders to contempt findings.
Even a partial ruling could order her temporary reinstatement while the final suit is resolved. This could restore her office access and staff allowances.
Until June 3, her constituents lack full representation in the National Assembly. Their project requests and budget briefs lose traction. They lack voice on federal issues.
Should she be reinstated, development efforts in Kogi Central could resume. They await her return to sponsor bills and propose motions. Local leaders remain hopeful.
If the court denies her relief, constituents may push harder for a recall of Senate leadership or elections. Grassroots groups say they will resist any further injustice.
Political analysts warn this standoff undermines public trust in democratic institutions. They note voter apathy risk rises when elected officials are silenced.
Some see this as a test for President Bola Tinubu’s stance on gender and rule of law. They watch how the executive branch responds to Senate defiance.
Observers say her bold move may inspire other female lawmakers to stand up. It could shift power dynamics within the National Assembly.
Local economies suffer when representation falters. Federal projects, budgetary allocations, and social programs stall. Kogi Central stands to lose if the impasse lingers.
Business owners worry about stalled agricultural grants and infrastructure repairs. Youth unemployment programs lack budgeting without a sitting senator lobbying for funds.
Until a resolution, private investors hold back on local ventures. They wait for clarity on political stability.
African Union observers note that similar cases in other countries ended with power-sharing talks. They recommend dialogue to avoid constitutional crises.
Regional bodies like ECOWAS urge Nigeria to uphold rule of law. They call for transparent processes when disciplining lawmakers.
Some international rights groups urge Nigeria to protect women’s political participation. They highlight the need to address gender bias in leadership.
Hashtags like #NatashaDeservesJustice and #FreeNatasha trend on Twitter. Citizens share memes, videos, and calls for solidarity.
Supportive posts emphasize her advocacy on flood relief for Kogi Central. Critics point to her confrontational style. Polls show 60% public support for her reinstatement.
On Facebook, groups debate whether Senate rules should override constituent rights. Comments reflect frustration with political elite.
Women rights groups say her case is emblematic of patriarchal resistance. They argue that female leaders face harsher penalties.
TechHerNG’s Chioma Agwuegbo warns that dismissing her petition showed bias. She calls for reforms in Senate complaint processes.
Activists demand Senate order review for sexual harassment complaints. They want clear guidelines to protect women from intimidation.
Some critics say the Federal High Court has been slow in dispensation. They question why her June 3 hearing took so long after March invoices.
Others praise the judiciary for standing up to legislative overreach. They believe courts must protect rights even against powerful bodies.
Legal experts note that her case may prompt rule changes regarding judicial intervention in legislative discipline.
The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has rallied behind her. They argue her suspension is politically motivated by ruling party interests.
The All Progressives Congress (APC), which controls the Senate, contends that internal rules must be respected. They claim the PDP is politicizing the matter.
Other opposition parties use her case to question President Tinubu’s stance on democracy and gender. They ask if the executive will intervene.
Amid outcry, some senators proposed revisiting Standing Orders on suspension to align with the Constitution. They call for clearer guidelines to prevent similar standoffs.
A joint committee was suggested to merge human rights and Senate rules on conduct. This led to spirited debate on legislative privileges vs democratic norms.
Senate Minority Leader and others urged calm, saying institutional integrity must not be compromised. They vowed to respect any court verdict.
In 2016, Senator Dino Melaye accused Sen. Remi Tinubu of sexual threats. No charges followed, showing precedents of unpunished allegations.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case recalls that incident but differs as she seeks legal recourse. It shows evolving use of courts against Senate leadership.
Critics cite this as a positive shift, where lawmakers rely on judiciary rather than internal committees.
Local outlets like Channels TV and Punch led breaking coverage. They featured her image from March 5, 2025, inside the Senate chamber.
Premium Times provided daily updates on her suit. They highlighted procedural twists as she moved from injunction to vacated orders.
Social media amplified reports with trending tags. Journalists credited her resilience in their pieces.
Chief Lawyer Michael Numa (SAN) argued the Senate’s actions were null “ab initio,” meaning void from the start. He cited constitutional supremacy.
Legal scholars note that if courts curb Senate discipline, similar suits may follow from other suspended or expelled lawmakers.
Some fear this could bog down legislative work with constant litigation. Others say it’s a necessary check on power.
Senators may think twice before using seating arrangements to enforce hierarchy. They could risk legal backlash.
There may be calls to revise Senate Standing Orders to include clear due-process steps. This could reduce internal conflict.
Legal training for senators on acceptable conduct and constitutional limits may increase.
The Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) noted that female representation has reached a low. They urge reforms to protect women’s voices in parliament.
Igwebuike Foundation condemned any attempt to silence a senator by internal rules. They called for respect of electoral mandates.
Youth groups in Abuja and Kogi plan rallies on June 3 to coincide with her court date. They hope to show solidarity.
Kogi State Governor’s office released a brief statement on June 1. They said they trust the judiciary to uphold justice. They avoided direct criticism of the Senate.
Local lawmakers in Kogi urged calm. Some called for a mediation panel to ease tensions between Senate and senator.
Some state assembly members expressed concern for constituents’ welfare in absence of representation.
Prof. Adewale Salami of University of Ibadan said this case may redefine separation of powers in Nigeria. He expects appeals to shape future norms.
Law lecturer Chidi Amaechi noted the court’s June 3 verdict could either confirm Senate supremacy or affirm judiciary’s check. Either way, it is landmark.
Some believe lower courts will tread cautiously when ruling against powerful legislative figures. They predict drawn-out litigation.
Many expect a packed courtroom. Journalists, activists, and constituents intend to fill every seat. They view June 3 as make-or-break day.
Some predict a swift ruling on interlocutory motions before full trial resumes. Others say all motions will be pushed to later dates.
Legal analysts caution that interim rulings may favor neither side definitively. They stress that final appeals could reach the Supreme Court.
This case highlights tension between legislative self-rule and judicial oversight. It tests Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
If the judiciary prevails, it affirms that elected officials are not above law. If the Senate prevails, it enshrines Senate autonomy. Both outcomes reshape the balance of power.
Observers hope for a resolution that strengthens constitutionalism and protects voters’ rights.
On Tuesday, June 3, 2025, all eyes will be on the Federal High Court in Abuja. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s appearance may define the limits of legislative discipline. It will shape how Nigeria balances power among branches of government.
Her case raises questions on gender parity, voters’ rights, and rule of law. Regardless of outcome, the fight has galvanized civil society and set a new standard for accountability.
Constituents, activists, and legal minds will watch closely. They expect Tuesday’s session to send a clear message about democracy’s future.