In a ruling with significant implications for Nigeria’s separation of powers, the Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate, affirming that the upper chamber acted within its constitutional authority.
The unanimous judgement, delivered on Monday by a three-judge panel, dismissed Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claim that her six-month suspension was unconstitutional or infringed her parliamentary privileges. According to the court, neither her fundamental rights nor her rights as a senator were violated by the disciplinary action.
Senate Powers, Rights and Responsibilities
At the centre of the judgement was the Senate’s conduct during a controversial plenary session on 20 February 2025. The court agreed with the Senate that its President was within his rights to reassign Ms Akpoti-Uduaghan’s seat and that only senators properly seated could take the floor.
Justice Abba Muhammed, delivering the lead ruling, noted that the Senate’s Standing Rules empower the presiding officer to organise debate and maintain order — including who may speak and when. In this instance, the court concluded that the Kogi Central lawmaker’s rights were not breached when she was denied the opportunity to address the chamber from an unassigned seat.
Legal experts say the ruling underlines the broad discretion afforded to Nigeria’s legislature in regulating its internal affairs — a long-running constitutional question in the dispute between lawmakers and the judiciary.
Contempt Charge Vacated, Fine Set Aside
While the court upheld the suspension, it struck out a separate contempt ruling that had followed. Ms Akpoti-Uduaghan was previously fined ₦5 million over a satirical apology she posted on social media directed at Senate President Godswill Akpabio. The appellate judges found that the contempt process was flawed and overturned both the fine and the requirement to apologise.
A Long, Contentious Battle
The dispute dates back to early 2025 when Ms Akpoti-Uduaghan challenged the Senate’s disciplinary action in court, arguing that it was excessive and deprived her constituents of representation. In turn, the Senate maintained that it was entitled to discipline members for misconduct, even amid legal proceedings.
As the matter has now been decided at the appellate level, the political spotlight turns to what happens next. Legal observers note that further appeals remain possible — including to the Supreme Court — particularly if either side believes there are unresolved constitutional questions.
What This Means for Nigerian Democracy
For many Nigerians, the saga highlights a broader tension at the heart of the country’s democracy: how to balance the independence of elected representatives with the need for discipline and internal governance in public institutions. To some, the appellate court’s ruling reinforces the autonomy of legislative bodies; to others, it raises questions about accountability and the limits of internal procedures when rights are at stake.
Whichever way one views it, Monday’s judgement marks a pivotal moment in a case that has captured headlines and stirred debate across the nation.
