The Senate’s refusal to recall the senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, because the order of the Federal High Court did not compel it to do so has again exposed the controversial nature of the judgment, which is unbecoming of courts in the country, Wale Igbintade writes
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s plan to return to the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, met stiff resistance as the red chamber cautioned her against returning until her suspension is formally lifted.
The resistance stem from a statement issued last Sunday by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Yemi Adaramodu, where he argued there is no valid court order compelling the red chamber to lift the lawmaker’s suspension ahead of schedule.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended in March 2025 following a confrontation with the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio over the lawmakers’ new seating arrangements.
She later accused Akpabio of sexual misconduct, an allegation the Senate President has denied.
However, the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Binta Nyako, ruled on July 4, 2025, that the six-month suspension imposed on Akpoti-Uduaghan in March was “excessive.”
But Daramola insisted that there is no standing court order compelling the upper chamber to recall the senator, and that the judgment was misinterpreted by the senator.
He warned that any attempt by the senator to return under a false pretext would be deemed premature, disruptive, and a violation of legislative order.
“The Senate as a law-abiding institution is committed to upholding the rule of law and the integrity of its proceedings. It will not tolerate the disruption of its proceedings,” the statement read.
“The Senate will, at the appropriate time, consider the advisory opinion of the court on both amending the Standing Orders of the Senate, her recall, and communicate the same thereof to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. Until then, she is respectfully advised to stay away from the Senate chambers and allow due process to run its full course.”
Justice Nyako, in her judgment, had described the suspension as “excessive.” She faulted the provision of Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Rules, as well as Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers and Privileges Act, which the upper legislative chamber relied on to suspend Akpoti-Uduaghan, declaring both as overreaching.
The judge stressed that the two legislations failed to specify the maximum period that a serving lawmaker could be suspended from office.
According to her, since lawmakers have a total of 181 days to sit in every legislative cycle, the six-month suspension handed to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was akin to pushing her away from her responsibilities to her constituents for about 180 days.
The judge held that though the Senate has the power to punish any of its members who breaches the rules, such sanction must not be excessive to deprive the constituents of their right to be represented.
She proceeded to award a fine of N5million against Akpoti-Uduaghan for her “satirical apology” post on her Facebook page on April 27, saying that the social media post was made in disobedience of a valid court order prohibiting parties in the suit from making comments to the press or on social media regarding the subject matter in the suit.
While Akpoti-Uduaghan has since appealed the award of N5million fine, Akpabio has also approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the judgment declaring Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Rules, as well as Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers and Privileges Act upon which the senator was suspended as overreaching.
However, it was not until a week after the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment was released that Nigerians knew how controversial the verdict was.
One of the few talking points from the judgment is how the judge arrived at all the above assertions and still failed to make a declarative order for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s immediate recall.
Not a few expressed shock that she did not follow precedents in the plethora of cases involving suspended lawmakers, including Senators Ali Ndume, Ovie Omo-Agege, as well as Dino Melaye, and others in the House of Representatives and state assemblies, where the courts expressly nullified the suspensions, ordered their reinstatement, and payment of withheld salaries and allowances.
They wondered how the courts have suddenly become advisers that Justice Nyako would offer an advisory opinion urging the Senate to reconsider the suspension instead of issuing a binding directive enforcing Natasha’s reinstatement, after concluding that suspending an elected lawmaker for six months effectively denies a constituency its right to representation.
Undoubtedly, the judgment has joined the growing list of incongruous, incoherent and controversial court judgments, fuelling the current loss of confidence in the judiciary.
It was the same path taken by the Supreme Court when it delivered vague and controversial judgments that failed to address the leadership crises in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP).
The judgments of these courts exacerbated the disputes in the parties.
Many analysts have stated that the judgment of Justice Nyako was not about Akpoti-Uduaghan, but the rule of law.
They reasoned that in view of the fact that Akpoti-Uduaghan is an opposition lawmaker with the propensity for impunity by the senators very high, the court should have made a declarative order that would not have allowed the red chamber to stop an immediate recall.
By Tuesday when the suspended senator attempted to resume plenary, she was prevented from gaining entry to the chamber.
To make matters worse, the red chamber has proceeded on a two-month recess, meaning that by the time they resume, the six-month suspension would have elapsed.
However, many analysts have accused the suspended senator of attempting to enforce a judgement she had appealed.
In recent times, the Nigerian judiciary has faced criticisms regarding controversial judgments and perceived inconsistencies, particularly in political and electoral matters. This has led to concerns about the judiciary’s independence, impartiality and integrity, and its role in upholding democratic principles.
Once regarded as the last hope of the common man, the judiciary is now seen by many as a nightmare, reduced to serving the whims and caprices of politicians through a string of shambolic judgments.
If it is not accused of issuing conflicting orders and decisions, it is accused of reversing previous rulings and creating confusion. Some argue that these inconsistencies undermine public trust and confidence in the third arm of government.
The judiciary plays a vital role in upholding democratic principles, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring the rule of law. An independent and impartial judiciary is crucial for a functioning democracy, especially in resolving electoral disputes and holding the executive accountable.
Many fear that if the vague and controversial judgments from the courts these days are not checked, they could throw the country into serious danger and undermine the fourth republic.
A strong, independent, and responsible judiciary is vital for the delivery of justice. As the most crucial arm of government in Nigeria, it must protect all who seek justice and lead in ensuring access to it. Without this, the judiciary risks losing both its relevance and the public’s trust.
Thisday
