Senate writes Natasha over reinstatement
The Nigerian Senate has written to Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, declaring she cannot return to the chamber yet despite a court ruling that declared her suspension unlawful.
The Senate’s letter, sent on July 14, 2025, was a response to an earlier notice from the senator’s legal team informing the National Assembly of her intention to resume work on July 15.
Her lawyer, Michael Numa (SAN), had cited the July 4 Federal High Court judgment which described her six-month suspension as unconstitutional and excessive.
But the Senate insisted that the court ruling did not include any clear order directing the National Assembly, the Senate President, or the Senate itself to recall her.
The reply, signed by Charles Yoila, Director of Litigation and Counselling for the Clerk to the National Assembly, stated that the judgment only advised the Senate to use its discretion to reinstate her.
The chamber maintained that there is no legal ground for her to return yet.
Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu also stated that the certified copy of the court order did not compel the Senate to act.
While Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team argued that the court’s judgment is binding under the constitution and demanded her immediate return, the Senate said she must wait for it to exercise its own powers before any resumption can take place.
Akpabio Drags Natasha’s Reinstatement To Appeal Court
Meanwhile, the Nigerian Senate has written to the Court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge the judgment that overturned the six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The appeal was filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio on July 14, 2025, following the July 4 ruling of the Federal High Court which ordered Natasha’s immediate reinstatement.
In response, Akpabio, through his lawyers, argued that the court had no power to interfere in parliamentary matters, citing Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
He also maintained that decisions made during plenary like Natasha’s suspension are shielded by the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and should not be challenged in court.
Akpabio’s appeal further stated that Natasha’s case was brought prematurely because she failed to go through the Senate’s internal channels for dispute resolution, particularly the Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions.
He also claimed that the Federal High Court violated his right to fair hearing by raising and deciding on issues that neither party had presented, including whether or not the length of suspension was appropriate.
