PDP, SANs Condemn Senate’s Refusal to Reinstate Natasha

PDP, SANs Condemn Senate’s Refusal to Reinstate Natasha

The controversy over Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension deepened on Tuesday as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and several Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) condemned the Senate’s decision to block her return when the upper chamber reconvenes on September 23.

In a letter dated September 4, the Acting Clerk of the National Assembly, Dr. Yahaya Danzaria, formally informed Akpoti-Uduaghan that her six-month suspension, imposed on March 6, remains in effect until the Court of Appeal delivers a ruling on her case against the Senate.

“The matter is sub judice, and no administrative action can be taken to facilitate your resumption until the judicial process concludes. You will be duly notified of the Senate’s decision once the matter is resolved,” the letter read.

The notification dashed the hopes of the Kogi Central lawmaker, who, according to her lawyer Victor Giwa, had already begun preparations to rejoin her colleagues after completing the six-month suspension.

Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended on March 6 after the Senate adopted the report of its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, which accused her of insubordination for refusing to vacate her assigned seat during plenary.

The decision stripped her of salaries, aides and office privileges.

The senator has consistently maintained that her suspension was politically motivated, linking it to a petition she filed accusing Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment—an allegation the Senate dismissed. She challenged the action in court, announcing in April that she had secured judgment in her favour. However, Senate leadership insisted she would remain suspended for the full six months.

In July, her dramatic attempt to force her way back into the chamber ended in a standoff, as security operatives barred her entry despite protests by her supporters outside the National Assembly.

Reacting to the fresh letter, the PDP accused the Senate leadership of acting in bad faith.

In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba, the party described the action as a calculated attempt by the APC-led Senate to stifle opposition voices and deprive the people of Kogi Central of representation.

“The attempt to use the National Assembly establishment against an elected senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in gross violation of the Constitution and the Standing Rules of the Senate is highly provocative and constitutes a clear and present danger to democracy,” the statement read.

The party alleged that the renewed move was part of a wider “creeping totalitarianism” under the APC-led Federal Government and demanded that the Clerk of the National Assembly withdraw the letter immediately.

PDP also linked the development to what it described as Akpabio’s “history of harassment against women,” urging the Senate President to clear himself of allegations rather than “intimidating” a female colleague.

The opposition party further called on the international community, rights groups, and democratic institutions to intervene, insisting that Akpoti-Uduaghan must be allowed to resume.

Senior Advocates of Nigeria said the Senate was overreaching in stopping Akpoti-Uduaghan from resuming at the upper chamber after serving her six-month suspension.

They argued that the argument of awaiting the determination of the court case before allowing Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume was constitutionally wrong and unjustifiable.

On his part, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN) argued that it was prudent and constitutionally proper for Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to be allowed to resume her seat as her suspension period had elapsed.

This, Adedeji said, would preserve the Senate’s dignity, show respect for its disciplinary powers, and ensure that the people of Kogi Central are not left without representation in violation of Sections 68 and 1(3) of the Constitution.

He argued that the suspension of Akpoti-Uduaghan raises a constitutional issue beyond internal discipline.

Adedeji said, “While Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the Senate to regulate its own procedure, Section 68 makes clear that a member can only vacate a seat in circumstances expressly provided by the Constitution. A temporary suspension must, therefore, not be used in a way that effectively denies constituents their right to representation.

“In Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly & Ors (FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025), Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, though declining jurisdiction on separation of powers, cautioned against excessive suspensions, noting that a six-month suspension, half a legislative year, undermines constitutional representation. Her Lordship observed as follows:

“I do not think this is the intention of the framer of the law. To make a law that has no end is excessive and cannot be the intention of the law… The Senate has the power to… recall the plaintiff and at the same time allow her to represent the people who sent her there.”

Another SAN, Wale Balogun, also spoke in favour of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s return to the Senate, having served out her six-month suspension.

Notwithstanding the pending case, Balogun argued that the Senate should respect constitutional democracy and not further deprive

Natasha’s constituency of representation.

Balogun said, “I feel that the Senate should be magnanimous in the interest of a constitutional democracy. It’s not only about Senator Natasha.

They should remember it’s about the good people of Kogi Central senatorial district, and it’s about the constitutional democracy that we practice.

“So, candidly, I do not share the sentiment of the Senate with respect to that position. Now, we are talking of two different scenarios. The first scenario is a suspension by the Senate, which I want to discuss with you.

“So, it’s a suspension from the Senate, that’s the first primary issue, which is for a defined period of time, for six months. The second issue is the fact that suspension is now a subject matter of litigation that is ongoing. So, these are two separate things. Now, she has, by exclusion of time, which is the six months as prescribed, whether rightly or wrongly, the subject matter of which is pending in court. So, by exclusion of that time, the woman has now spent six months, and now the six months are over. So, naturally, that brings an end to those six months, because in other words, she has served the suspension.”

Referring to the instance of Bode George, Balogun wondered if Natasha would remain on perpetual suspension even though the court case may drag on for months, even years.

“The matter currently before the court is a separate issue, a secondary question arising from the primary case. The court can still rule on her suit and determine whether her suspension was lawful. Her allowances, salary, and other entitlements were withheld, and the court’s decision will ultimately clarify the legality of those actions. Since her six-month suspension has ended, she should be able to return to the Senate, even as the court continues to examine whether the suspension was wrongful. It’s similar to a prisoner who has served their sentence while challenging the legality of their conviction; the final judgment will provide closure,” Balogun said.

In the same vein, Paul Obi (SAN) condemned the Senate’s refusal to allow Akpoti-Uduaghan back after serving her suspension, describing it as unjust, excessive, and an overreach.

“I don’t see how this can be legally justified. She was suspended for six months, and despite her attempts to seek judicial or public intervention, the Senate maintained the period. Now, as the six months near completion, they are using the courts to effectively extend her suspension. That is beyond the Senate’s powers and constitutes overreach and overkill. She has served her punishment according to their own rules; she should be allowed to resume her duties for her constituency. Any attempt to prolong the suspension surreptitiously is not right,” Obi said.

Similarly, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) argued that the Senate is exceeding its authority by preventing Akpoti-Uduaghan from resuming her seat until the court delivers a ruling.