Court to Rule June 27 on Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Suspension Saga
In a dramatic legal battle drawing national attention, the Federal High Court in Abuja has set June 27, 2025, as the judgment day in the suit filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan challenging her controversial six-month suspension from the Nigerian Senate. The unfolding legal confrontation pits the senator against the powerful machinery of the National Assembly, including Senate President Godswill Akpabio, in what many have termed not just a political contest, but a litmus test for the independence of Nigeria’s judiciary.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, was suspended on March 8, 2025, after being accused of breaching Senate rules, disrupting proceedings, and, most notably, making public allegations of sexual harassment against the Senate President. The suspension, announced in a voice vote that followed a heated closed-door session, sparked intense media interest and public debate, with reactions deeply polarized along political and gender lines.
The Senate’s decision, its leadership argued, was based on Natasha’s alleged conduct during plenary and a subsequent media interview in which she claimed that Senate President Akpabio had sexually harassed her during a previous political encounter—an explosive revelation that further shook Nigeria’s political establishment.
However, Akpoti-Uduaghan insisted that her suspension was not only politically motivated but also illegal, given an earlier court order issued by Justice Obiora Egwuatu restraining the Senate from taking any punitive measures against her until the conclusion of ongoing legal proceedings.
The matter came before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with arguments on both sides intensifying over the months. During the resumed hearing on May 13, the court addressed both the substantive case and related contempt proceedings that had emerged in the aftermath of Natasha’s public statements.
YOU MAY READ
Natasha Akpoti vs. Akpabio: Where Is the Proof?
Natasha’s legal team, led by seasoned advocate Michael Numa (SAN), adopted written arguments, praying the court to strike out all preliminary objections and affirm the illegality of the Senate’s actions. “The Senate acted in contempt of court when it proceeded with the suspension,” Numa said, referencing the restraining order from Justice Egwuatu. He also dismissed the claim that his client’s media engagement violated any valid court order.
According to Numa, the restraining order clearly precluded punitive actions pending determination of the suit, and there was no legitimate basis to classify Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s remarks on a live television program as disobedient to any judicial directive. He emphasized that public discourse on matters of public interest—even when uncomfortable—should not be criminalized.
On the opposing end, legal representatives for the Senate, the Clerk of the National Assembly, and the Senate President presented a united front in challenging both the jurisdiction of the court and the merit of Natasha’s claims.
Charles Yoila, counsel to the Clerk of the National Assembly, raised a pivotal jurisdictional issue, arguing that the court lacked authority to meddle in what he termed “internal legislative affairs.” Yoila urged the court to strike out the suit on grounds of lack of locus standi and judicial competence, echoing the doctrine of separation of powers which, according to him, prevents courts from interfering in the procedural workings of the legislative arm.
Chikasolu Ojukwu (SAN) and J. Daudu (SAN), representing the Senate as an institution, supported Yoila’s stance and further accused Natasha of flouting court orders by “engaging the media with reckless abandon.”
The most intriguing argument perhaps came from Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who appeared on behalf of Senate President Akpabio. Ogunwumiju contended that the matter had become “academic,” since the Senate session in question had ended, and the political landscape had shifted. He asked the court to dismiss the suit, or alternatively, accept his application seeking the removal of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s controversial “satirical apology” from public discourse.
YOU MAY READ
INEC just received the petition from “constituents” to replace Natasha with Yahaya Bello
“This is no longer about legality—it is about political drama,” Ogunwumiju argued, describing Natasha’s defiance as part of a calculated effort to stir public sentiment and demonize her political opponents.
One of the more complex elements of the legal confrontation has been the series of contempt charges filed by both sides. While Akpabio’s legal team accused Natasha of violating a court order by going on live television and discussing the alleged harassment, Natasha countered by filing her own contempt motion against Akpabio and the Senate for ignoring the restraining order.
Justice Nyako, in her remarks, emphasized the seriousness of the contempt allegations and revealed that she would address them before giving judgment on the substantive suit. “If the preliminary objections are upheld, the suit ends there,” she declared.
Her statement effectively raised the stakes, signaling that the case may be dismissed on procedural grounds without ever reaching the heart of Natasha’s grievances, a possibility that has drawn criticism from civil society groups and legal experts who warn of a precedent that could embolden legislative impunity.
The public’s response to the case has been sharply divided. Feminist groups, human rights activists, and political reformers have rallied behind Natasha, framing the issue as an example of how women in power are often silenced when they challenge patriarchal norms.
“This is not just about a Senate seat; it is about a woman’s right to speak her truth and defend her dignity,” said Aisha Yesufu, a prominent activist. Others, however, have accused Natasha of playing the victim card for political mileage, with some of her critics even questioning the timing and authenticity of her harassment claims.
Still, Natasha’s camp has remained vocal, with her supporters describing the Senate’s actions as a blatant case of “punitive overreach” aimed at intimidating dissenting voices. “She is a lioness in a den of wolves,” one supporter posted on X (formerly Twitter), applauding her courage in standing up to a male-dominated institution.
At the heart of the legal contest are crucial constitutional questions: Can the Nigerian Senate unilaterally suspend a duly elected member for allegations yet to be proven in court? Does the judiciary have the power to rein in legislative overreach? And what happens when allegations of sexual misconduct collide with political loyalty?
Legal experts remain divided. While some argue that the legislature must have the autonomy to regulate its internal affairs, others insist that no institution, however powerful, is above judicial review—especially when fundamental rights are at stake.
“The doctrine of separation of powers cannot be used to shield legislative tyranny,” said Barr. Olumide Adefemi, a constitutional lawyer. “Once an individual’s right to fair hearing and representation is threatened, the courts have a duty to intervene.”
Beyond the legal arguments, many believe that the suspension and subsequent court case have political undertones, possibly tied to Natasha’s growing influence and rumored interest in contesting for higher office in 2027. A charismatic figure with grassroots support and a reputation for speaking out against injustice, Natasha has emerged as a political force in North-Central Nigeria.
Her feud with Senate President Akpabio, a prominent figure in President Tinubu’s APC-led government, is seen by some as part of a larger political chess game aimed at neutralizing perceived threats ahead of the next electoral cycle.
Analysts point to the intensity of the legal battle as evidence that more than personal grievances are at play. “This is not just a court case. It is political warfare by other means,” said political analyst Okey Uche, noting how courtroom victories or defeats could shape public perception heading into 2027.
As Nigerians await Justice Nyako’s ruling on June 27, all eyes remain fixed on the Federal High Court. If the court rules in Natasha’s favor, it could set a transformative precedent, curbing the power of the Senate to act arbitrarily and reinforcing judicial oversight of legislative conduct.
On the other hand, if the court sides with the defendants and dismisses the case—either on jurisdictional grounds or due to procedural infractions—it could signal a chilling message to elected representatives who speak against the powers that be.
Legal consequences aside, the political fate of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan now hangs in the balance, with the court’s judgment likely to shape her legacy—either as a trailblazer unjustly silenced, or a controversial figure whose defiance of institutional norms backfired.
The Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan case presents a rare moment of judicial reckoning in Nigeria’s democratic evolution. It forces the nation to confront uncomfortable questions about power, gender, political accountability, and the rule of law.
Regardless of the outcome on June 27, the case has already etched itself into the annals of Nigerian political and legal history, challenging citizens, lawmakers, and judges alike to reflect on the limits of authority, the courage of dissent, and the cost of truth-telling in public office.
One thing is certain—come June 27, the verdict will not just determine the fate of one senator, but may very well redefine the boundaries of legislative power in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
