Senate-Akpabio vs Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
Senate-Akpabio vs Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
The controversy arising from the suspension, litigation and failure to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume in the Nigerian Senate, is one that has garnered many colourations and bitter debate as to its propriety or otherwise. The bitter feud between the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, both Lawyers, involves misconduct on the floor of the Senate, accusations of sexual harassment, corruption and political gerrymandering, bordering on the integrity of both lawmakers. The subject-matter of this discourse is whether Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan ought to have been allowed to resume sitting in the Senate, at the expiration of her six months suspension. At the time of going to press, she had still been refused entry into the hallowed Chambers of the Senate. Professor Mike Ozekhome, SAN; Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN; Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja and Dr Akpor Mudiaga Odje discuss the issues in the saga
Quo Vadis: Natasha vs The Senate: Individual vs Institution
Professor Mike Ozekhome, SAN
Introduction
The ongoing drama in Nigeria concerning the Senate and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has once again spotlighted the uneasy intersection of law, politics, and institutional power. At its centre stands Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the outspoken lawmaker representing Kogi Central, whose suspension has since become more than an internal disciplinary matter. Yes, it has become a test case for the limits of legislative authority, the sanctity of judicial process, and the huge price of dissent in a chamber often accused of jealously guarding its own with unflinching zeal. How come it now strips one of its own naked in the public domain? What are the issues?
Discipline or Oppression?
What began in March as a disciplinary sanction for alleged insubordination, has now spiralled into a serious constitutional standoff. Six months on, the lawmaker had expected to reclaim her seat with the effluxion of her suspension period only to be met with an official communication from the Acting Clerk of the National Assembly reminding her that her fate hangs not in the will of her suffering constituents, nor even in the resolutions of her colleagues, but in the hands of the appellate court to which both parties had submitted their grievances. The letter effectively extends her political exile and underscores the Senate’s insistence that its authority remains unbent, even in the face of legal challenge and public outcry.
She believes the Senate Institution is being deployed for personal aggrandisement by the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio.
However, beneath the procedural veneer, lies a deeper contest: a narrative of alleged political victimisation; a clash of huge egos at the highest level of the legislature; and a Senator’s insistent claim that her punishment is nothing but a retaliation for daring to accuse the Senate President of misconduct. More so, her suspension, initially framed as punishment for “insubordination has evolved far beyond an internal disciplinary quarrel. It has since graduated into the theatre of a broader conflict. It has become one that pits the autonomy of a legislator to act on behalf of her constituents, against the authority of the legislative red chamber. By extension, this involves the rights of an elected representative and her constituents, against the collective power of the institution that claims to regulate her.
The Case is Sub judice, Yes, but is that all?
Natasha’s suspension is being challenged in court, both in appeals and cross-appeals. This makes it sub judice. The doctrine of sub judice is one of those subtle rules that sits quietly in the background of the law until a controversy erupts, and suddenly it takes centre stage.
Literally meaning “Under a Judge,” the rule simply insists that when a matter is before a competent court, the parties (and indeed, the public) must exercise restraint. No parallel tribunal should decide the same issue. No authority should prejudice the outcome. No commentary should undermine the court’s ability to do justice. It is a rule of deference, born of the recognition that the courtroom must remain the final and undisturbed arena for resolving disputes.
In Nigeria, the courts have applied this doctrine in two principal ways. See Governor of Lagos v Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 621. First, by discouraging the multiplicity of suits; that is, the tendency to file the same matter in different courts in search of a favourable judgement. The Supreme Court, as far back as the case of Okorodudu v Okoromadu (1977) LPELR-2495(SC), frowned upon this abuse, declaring it an affront to judicial integrity.
Second, the doctrine of sub judice, has been used to curb prejudicial commentary. In Bello v Attorney-General of Lagos State (2006) LPELR-7585(CA), the intermediate court stressed that comments capable of influencing or pre-empting a court’s decision, could amount to contempt. Thus, the rule is meant to preserve fairness, protect litigants, and uphold the dignity of the Bench. It was never meant to overreach, or punish a citizen unduly.
Yet, like every principle of law, sub judice can be and appears in the Natasha case, to have been stretched beyond its natural contours. And, when that happens, it morphs from a shield of justice into a sword of suppression. This is what looms large in the case of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. The Senate insists that because her case is pending at the Court of Appeal, she must remain suspended until judgement is delivered, notwithstanding that even its own suspension time of six months has expired. In other words, the pendency of her suit is not treated as a shield and reason for restraint on their part, but as a weapon and justification to extend her punishment. What was designed as a fence to keep justice safe, is now being used as a whip to keep a legislator silent and at bay.
The problem with this posture is that, it profoundly challenges decency and morality. An example: Imagine a tenant who challenges his landlord’s eviction notice in court. While the matter is being heard, the landlord bolts the house and imperiously declares: “Because this case is in court, you must stay outside; you cannot re-enter until the Judge decides”. Though the man has not yet been adjudged guilty of insubordination or trespass, he is already dispossessed, punished, not by law, but by an oppressive process. He is made to suffer the very penalty he is contesting, long before the court can speak. This is precisely the danger when sub judice is invoked, not to protect the legal process, but to prolong exclusion.
Where lies the fate of the innocent Kogi Constituents?
At the very heart of this controversy lies not simply the fate of one Senator, but the voice of an entire constituency, Kogi Central (one-third of Kogi State). Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was not self-appointed to the Red Chamber; she was chosen and voted for by the people of Kogi Central through the instrumentality of the ballot, the most sacred covenant between citizen and State in a democracy. The ballot represents the will of the people. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), (the 1999 Constitution) vests legislative power in the National Assembly (NASS); and that power is exercised through representatives elected by constituencies across the Federation. To suspend a Senator is, in effect, to suspend the constitutional voice of her people.
But, herein lies the paradox: the Senate insists that the matter is sub judice, that until the Court of Appeal rules, Natasha must remain in political limbo. But, what of the people whose collective will she embodies? Does litigation strip them of their right to be represented in the national discourse? Can the judicial pendency of one woman’s grievance, become the silencing of hundreds of thousands of constituents? If democracy is truly government of the people, by the people, and for the people, (as Abraham Lincoln: once enthused at his Gettysburg speech on November 18, 1863), then the punishment of Natasha is not hers alone. It is the disenfranchisement of a whole Kogi Central, the people who invested their hope in her.
The courts have often reminded us that representation is not ornamental, but substantive. In INEC v Musa (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806) 72, the Supreme Court underscored that political rights flow directly from the Constitution, and cannot be lightly abridged. Likewise, in Amaechi INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227, the court went further, declaring that the electorate’s mandate is paramount, and even political parties must bow before it. If the Judiciary itself recognises that the will of the people is superior to procedural technicalities of political parties, why then should the Senate, an institution that exists only because constituencies exist, act as though it can silence a district with the stroke of a gavel?
The mandate belongs, not to Natasha as an individual, but to her people. In the case of The Speaker, Bauchi House of Assembly v Hon. Rifkatu Samson Danna (2017) 49 WRN 52, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal filed against the judgement of a Bauchi State High Court in respect of the illegal suspension of Honourable Rifkatu Danna. The intermediate court held that, the suspension of the legislator constituted a breach of the right of the Bogoro Constituency to be represented by her in the State House of Assembly. The court equally held that, the decision of the House to withhold the salaries and allowances of the legislator was illegal as she was not an employee, but an elected member of the Bauchi State of Assembly. By extrapolation, Natasha is not an employee of the Senate, but one of the 109 Senators.
Senator Natasha is nothing but a vessel, a custodian and a courier of their collective voice and will. Her exclusion from plenary sessions, committees, motions and votes translates to the silencing of that constituency in every matter of her State and national importance. Whether the subject is the budget, constitutional amendments, or motions affecting infrastructure, security and welfare, Kogi Central is conspicuously absent; not by choice, but by institutional fiat. This is not discipline; it is disenfranchisement. This is building strong men; not strong institutions.
It must also be remembered that suspension, as a tool of internal discipline, cannot override the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution. Section 14(2)(a) declares that “sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.” Section 68 further details the circumstances under which a legislator may lose his or her seat, viz: defection, conviction, resignation, or recall by constituents. Nowhere does the Constitution contemplate indefinite suspension, as a legitimate means of punishing an erring Legislator. That practically amounts to complete removal from her seat.
To allow this, is to create a new unknown ground for disqualification outside the clear provisions of the supreme law of the land. That, in itself, is unconstitutional. The Senate may argue that internal discipline is necessary, to preserve order and decorum. True. But, discipline that frontally attacks the Constitution (fons et origo) and silences an entire constituency, crosses from order into chaos and usurpation. The Senate institution, is not greater than the Constitution that birthed it. A tail cannot wag the dog, its owner. And, while Natasha may be one Senator, she embodies a district. She is the alter ego of a people, a mandate that cannot be muted under the guise of procedure.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, Senator Natasha vs The Senate is not merely a skirmish over parliamentary decorum; it is more of a referendum on the very heart and soul of democratic representation. The Senate may insist on its authority to discipline; but, then, authority without restraint becomes tyranny. Senator Natasha may appear as one woman locked in combat with a towering institution, yet, behind her stands the invisible multitude whose mandate she bears. To gag and muzzle her, is to censor them; to suspend her indefinitely, is to suspend their sovereignty indefinitely.
The doctrine of sub judice may counsel caution, but it cannot annul the clear provisions of the Constitution. The doctrine may preserve the status quo, but, it cannot legitimise disenfranchisement. Between the rights of one Senator and the prerogatives of the Senate, lies a higher truth: sovereignty belongs to the people, and no institution is licensed to mute their voice.
Thus, the question is not whether Senator Natasha has erred in conduct, but whether an institution sworn to protect democracy can justify punishing an entire constituency in the name of procedure. History’s verdict on such struggles is always the same: the individual may falter, but the people’s will endures forever. It is therefore, imperative to state that the institution that forgets its source of legitimacy courts its own decay, if not extinction.
In this contest of one against many, an individual versus an institution, the brilliance of democracy shines in the reminder that no chamber, however august, is greater than the people whose breath gives it life. The crucial question is: what does the Senate lose by recalling Senator Natasha whose six months suspension it imposed has elapsed? The answer to this question unlocks the truth. The answer is NOTHING. It is a matter of conscience – “an open wound; only truth can heal” (Uthman Dan Fodio).
Professor Mike Ozekhome, CON, SAN, Abuja
Allow Senator Natasha Akpoti to Resume
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
I have read the letter from the Acting Clerk of the Senate on the above subject-matter, wherein it was stated that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot resume in the Senate until her case in court is finally determined. I think the Senate is overreaching itself, with this position.
First, the suspension of the Senator was for six months certain, being limited by time. Once the six months expire, she should be allowed to resume 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 months suspension, as to its validity and constitutionality. The appeal flowing from that case is also limited in scope to the six months 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 period, will be to make the suspension indefinite.
Since this matter relates to the rights and privileges of a whole constituency comprising thousands of voters, the Senate should do the needful by allowing Senator Natasha to resume forthwith.
Senator Akpoti 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.
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
Delay in Senator Akpoti’s Resumption is Due to Contributory Negligence
Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja
“Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and her Lawyers are guilty of Contributory Negligence for the delay in her resumption. If She and her Lawyers had applied Legisprudence and Parliamentary Diplomacy: Litigation is not the best (or only) solution (Lessons from Femi Falana, SAN)”
Architects of Delay of Senator Akpoti’s Resumption
I feel honoured to be invited by THISDAY LAWYER to provide a written opinion, on this issue of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s resumption after serving her six month suspension.
My straightforward answer is that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and her Lawyers are the architects of the delay in her resumption. In other words, apart from any blame that can be heaped upon the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, both Senator Natasha and her Lawyers share a measure of blame. In legal parlance, it is referred to as “contributory negligence”.
For example, on 11th September 2025, one of her Lawyers (Michael J. Numa, SAN) wrote a letter addressed to the Clerk to the National Assembly. His letter was supposed to be a response to the letter dated 4th September, 2025 and signed by the Acting Clerk to the National Assembly, Dr Yahaya Dan-Zaria, wherein the said Acting Clerk had stated reasons why Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan could not resume immediately. Both the tone and the content of the said letter betrays a lack of understanding of legisprudence, parliamentary diplomacy, display of simple good faith and professional courtesy that is prescribed by Rule 26 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023.
Pre-Litigation Meeting
Dr Yahaya Dan-Zaria who signed the said letter dated 4th September, 2025, is a senior Lawyer. One would have expected Mr Numa, SAN to have arranged a meeting with Dr Yahaya Dan-Zaria, as the person that signed the said letter dated 4th September, 2025. The purpose of such a meeting would be for the Lawyer to Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to gain insights into the remote, underlying reasons behind the said letter. Most of these reasons are usually not captured inside contains of formal letters. And, the benefits of such face-to-face meetings are priceless, because they could provide the desired results, or invaluable ammunition with which any litigation Lawyer can utilise later in court. In fact, the litigation Lawyer can cite such pre-litigation meetings to win the sympathy of the Judge later on, as as evidence that he explored and exhausted amicable methods of resolution before embarking upon litigation as a last resort. Such pre-litigation meeting is also important, when any Lawyer is dealing with an area of legal practice that the said litigation Lawyer is not familiar with.
Legislative law or the law that deals with legislation, legislators and legislatures is a still a new and emerging area of legal practice, considering the fact that it was only in the year 1999 that legislatures were allowed to operate after decades of military rule in Nigeria.
Since 2015, I came under the part-time pupillage of Femi Falana, SAN, and I have learned that a successful Lawyer does not apply litigation, as the be-all-and-end-all tool of his or her trade or profession. Femi Falana, SAN has won many highly complicated cases, without filing a single pre-litigation letter or brief of argument inside any court of law. Even though, Femi Falana, SAN does not hold a Master of Laws (LLM) degree in legislative drafting, he was able to engage the leadership of the 9th National Assembly to secure amendment of a piece of legislation that helped the then Nigerian Government recoup over $62 million in unpaid royalties by international oil companies operating within Nigeria. He achieved this by holding pre-litigation meetings with the former Speaker to the House of Representatives, National Assembly and Senator Theodore Kalu.
I have said enough, on this note, I rest my case.
Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja, Legislative Drafting Expert, Maseru, Lesotho
Natasha vs The Senate: Is the Law an Ass?
Dr Akpo Mudiaga Odje
Introduction
This unfolding political cum legal matter was triggered by the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan by the hallowed Red Chamber on 4th March, 2025, for acts considered as breaching Senates rules and ethics. She was thus, suspended for six months commencing from the above date.
This meant, that within that period, she would not earn salaries, entitlements or carry out any function as a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Senator Natasha Files a Suit to Challenge her Suspension
As expected, Senator Natasha (for short), filed a Suit at the Federal High Court challenging the said suspension on grounds that it was a breach of her rights to a fair hearing, deprivation of her constituents, and also violates existing decisions of the court, which hitherto had ruled that parliament cannot suspend any of its members, let alone for six months; as it would violate the electoral rights of her constituents who elected her to serve them at the Senate.
Judgement of the Federal High Court Vacillates and Oscillates on the Issues
In curious equivocal judgement that was devoid of legal certainty, Justice Binta Nyako, whilst faulting the action of the Senate, nevertheless with the profundity of respect, failed to declare their action as lucidly unconstitutional, and also over-sighted to order re-instatementof Senator Natasha, which she claimed as part of her reliefs in that Court.
This apparent carsus ommisus over the above relief unwittingly made both Senator Natasha and the Senate, to contemporaneously claim legal victory against each other in respect of the said judgement. Whilst Senator Natasha was celebrating legal victory, the Senate was equally celebrating legal victory, and curiously too, both celebrations were in respect of the same judgement.
In other words, the effect of the judgement in the ultimate scrutiny, was incapable of synthesised analysis.
This was how the exquisite Anagolu JSC labelled a similar judgement in the case of Nwosu v State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt 35) 348 at 359 at para G-H, wherein the judicial sage adumbrated to wit:
“The picture presented in the ultimate, was of an inconsistent judgement, devoid of any coherent pattern, and incapable of synthesised analysis”
Both supposed victorious parties, surprisingly, filed appeals against the same judgement both had hitherto celebrated victory upon.
In a rather strange development and legal twist, the same parties who claimed respective and concurrent legal victories from the said judgement, subsequently summersaulted and filed appeals against the same judgement.
It was thus, becoming apparent, that it is the said judgement like the present 1999 Constitution as amended, and which will still be amended, that was the source of the confusion and same unwittingly became a legal body trap for Senator Natasha, which the Senate finally exploited in deciding not to re-admit Senator Natasha even after the expiration of her earlier six months suspension.
Whilst Senator Natasha is appealing against the judgement for not ordering her re-instalment, the Senate was equally appealing against the observations of the Lordship chiding them of their action.
When a Matter is Sub judice, Parties are Expected to Stay All Actions in that Regard
Indeed, it a notorious and axiomatic principle of law that when a matter is in court, it becomes sub judice, and parties are not to do any thing that will foist a fait accompli on the court, or which may render the judgement of the court nugatory.
In other words, the court does not encourage, nor sanction the resort to self-help whilst litigation is ongoing.
This is the crystallised principle in Ojukwu v Lagos State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 621 at page 34 paras F-G, per the quintessential, Kayode Eso, JSC.
Six Months Suspension of Senator Natasha From 4th March, 2025, Expired at Midnight of 3rd September, 2025
By the operation of the law vide the Interpretation Act of 1961, which Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution as amended says should be applied in interpreting same, Senator Natasha’s six months suspension on 4th March, 2025 ended at midnight of 3rd September, 2025.
We refer to the case of Akinremi v Akeredolu (No.2)(1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 25) 710, the Socrates of the Supreme Court.
And, also the judgement of the courageous Justice Akinsanya in the unreported of case of Gani Fawehinmi v Interim National Government (ING) 1993.
This issue, however, ought not to have posed any problem at all for both parties and us, if they did not appeal the said judgement.
Do the Appeals deprive Senator Natasha from being admitted back into the Senate, after the expiration of her six months suspension?
Whilst the Senate, if it chooses to, can admit Senator Natasha without breaking any law, it has chosen to rather, and on the contrary, to seek hypocritical refuge under the principle of the matter being “sub judice” and to wittingly further extend Senator Natasha’s suspension, by tying her fate to the determination of the appeals both have filed at the appellate court.
This is being clever by half, and indeed, a slap on the face of good conscience, equity and of even law, by the Senate pretending to be abiding by the law on this now vexatious matter.
Hence, I think such a scenario and pastoring displayed by the Senate is why it is said that The Law is an Ass.
Is the Law an Ass?
The Senate has craftily relied on the technicality of law, to deprive Senator Natasha of both her rights not to be suspended, and even inflicted another pain on her by extending through the same law, the six months suspension earlier unleashed on her in March this year.
In both ways, the law seems on face value to support Senator Natasha and, in another way, it also support the Senate for complying with the principle of lis pendens, as the matter is actually sub judice.
This is further augmented because, as it is now, and very regrettably too, none of the parties has been adjudged right or wrong under the law, as based on the ambivalent and non-binding judgement of Justice Binta Nyako!
The law therefore, supports both Senator Natasha to enforce her right at the expiration of the suspension, and the law equally supports the Senate in apparently obeying the rule of the law as the matter is sub judice.
So, is the law An Ass?
Indeed, it is this dualistic and perhaps, elastic nature of the law, that made Nnaemeka Agu JSC to ponder aloud over the law being “an ass” in the case of African Petroleum v Owudunni (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt 210) 391.
There, the sagacious jurist adumbrated to wit:
“This is sad, the law, it has been said, is an ass. And, the unruly ass must keep galloping along, so long as litigants refuse to follow simple rules clearly laid down by statute. This is of the very nature of justice according to law; and the courts must take the blame!”
Political Undercurrents and Power Show Eclipsing the Law
It is our firm view, that political undercurrents, and “power show” (according to the iconic Fela Anikulakpo Kuti), have unfortunately been used to eclipse the law; if not, Senator Natasha ought to have been at least allowed to be re-admitted into the Senate, notwithstanding the pendency of the Appeals.
Conclusion
Whilst we do not want to label the law as an ass, or why the ass is troubling litigants, as in this instance, we would want to respectfully admonish that the Senate ignore Senator Natasha who is the messenger of her constituents, and have pity as well as compassion on their message for democratic dividends and participation, which they elected her for. And Senator Natasha should also ignore any power show from the Senate, and look rather at the electoral power given to her by her constituents, to make them enjoy democratic benefits.
If the parties balance this view, it is likely the matter could be resolved even before the appeals are determined.
As the cliché accentuates, two wrongs cannot “certainly” and even with “certainty” “Make a Right”
Dr Akpo Mudiaga Odje, LLD, Constitutional Lawyer; Member, British Council
The post Senate-Akpabio vs Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.
The controversy arising from the suspension, litigation and failure to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume in the Nigerian Senate, is one that has garnered many colourations and bitter debate as to
The post Senate-Akpabio vs Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan appeared first on THISDAYLIVE.
Hot Source