In July 2025, the Nigerian Senate found itself at the center of a high-stakes legal and political standoff after a Federal High Court ruled that the six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan was “excessive and overreaching.” The court ordered the Senate to reconsider the suspension, prompting calls for her reinstatement. Senior lawmaker Seriake Dickson supported the ruling and urged a swift return, while the human rights organization SERAP demanded immediate compliance, warning that the Senate’s refusal would constitute a constitutional violation .
Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan—Nigeria’s first elected female senator from Kogi Central—was suspended in March after engaging in a confrontation with Senate President Godswill Akpabio over a seating change. During the ensuing fracas, she accused Akpabio of sexual harassment, allegations he has vehemently denied. The Senate’s Ethics Committee dismissed her petition on procedural grounds and imposed her suspension for misconduct—including speaking out of turn and refusing to occupy her reassigned seat .
Despite Senate leadership’s assertion that Natasha must submit a written apology before any reinstatement, court rulings have emphasized that the suspension deprived her constituents of representation for nearly the entire legislative session. The court also found that Senate rules invoked to justify her suspension lacked clarity on maximum penalties, making the six-month ban unconstitutional .
With the July ruling delivered on the 4th, Natasha announced she would resume plenary duty by July 15 or 22—despite Akpabio’s appeal and the Senate’s request for a certified copy of the judgment before acting. She reaffirmed that the court’s decision constituted a “legal recommendation” under Section 318 of the Constitution, compelling legislative compliance .
Civil society groups, including SERAP, condemned the Senate’s handling of the issue, labeling the suspension as a direct attack on democratic principles and demanding full restoration of her legislative rights and privileges . Meanwhile, public discourse—amplified on social media—spoke of broader implications: the use of institutional authority to silence dissent and marginalize women within politics .
The Senate, for its part, insisted it remained bound by internal procedure, not external judicial instruction, and maintained that Natasha’s suspension would stand until its legal team reviewed the full judgment. Senators supporting Akpabio argued that parliamentary discipline must be upheld and cautioned against perceptions of the National Assembly bowing to judicial pressure .
The public face-off between judicial authority and legislative sovereignty brings into sharp focus Nigeria’s struggle over democratic norms, gender equity, and the rule of law. Natasha’s case has ignited widespread debate over sexual harassment, institutional bias, and the rights of elected representatives to serve uninterrupted.
Credit: The Guardian, The Leadership
