The legal and political battle arising from the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, has further escalated as Godswill Akpabio, in his capacity as President of the Senate, has again approached the Supreme Court of Nigeria to challenge appellate decisions connected to the matter.
Court documents sighted indicate that Senator Akpabio has filed a motion before the apex court seeking to regularise and sustain his appeal over the controversial suspension of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, a dispute that has continued to generate national debate over legislative discipline, constitutional rights, and the limits of parliamentary authority.
The suit, filed at the Supreme Court sitting in Abuja, lists Senator Akpabio as the appellant, while the respondents include Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, Senator Neda Imasuen.
The dispute originated from events during a plenary session of the Senate in February 2025, when Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan raised issues bordering on parliamentary privilege and alleged procedural irregularities.
The matter was subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, a process that eventually led to her suspension from legislative activities.
Dissatisfied with the disciplinary action, the Kogi Central lawmaker approached the Federal High Court, Abuja, alleging violations of her constitutional right to a fair hearing and non-compliance with the Senate Standing Orders. In a judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, the trial court considered far-reaching questions relating to parliamentary privilege, internal legislative procedure, and the scope of judicial intervention in legislative affairs.
Following developments at the Court of Appeal, Senator Akpabio has now taken the matter further to the Supreme Court, seeking extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact, and an order deeming his notice of appeal and brief of argument as properly filed and served.
In the application brought pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court Act, and relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the appellant argues that the appeal raises substantial constitutional and procedural questions deserving the attention of the apex court. He contends that the Senate acted within its powers under Section 60 of the Constitution, which grants the National Assembly authority to regulate its own procedure.
Senator Akpabio’s legal team maintains that the presiding officer of the Senate is not mandatorily bound to immediately rule on every point of privilege once raised, and that the Senate’s internal disciplinary mechanisms were lawfully activated in response to what it described as disorderly conduct during plenary proceedings.
On her part, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has consistently insisted that her suspension was unlawful, excessive, and carried out in violation of her right to a fair hearing. She maintains that the Senate failed to comply with its own Standing Orders before referring her to the ethics committee and imposing disciplinary sanctions, thereby denying her the opportunity to properly defend herself.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, 21st, 2026, Distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal counsel was formally served with the Supreme Court processes relating to the appeal, effectively placing the matter before all parties and paving the way for a full legal contest at the apex court.
The case also features a related contempt proceeding arising from a social media post by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan during the pendency of the suit, which the Federal High Court ruled violated a subsisting restraining order. The trial court imposed a fine and ordered a public apology, a decision the senator has also challenged on appeal, arguing that the alleged contempt was ex facie curiae and criminal in nature, requiring strict compliance with statutory procedures.
Legal observers say the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could have profound implications for Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, particularly in defining the boundaries between legislative autonomy and judicial oversight. The case is also expected to clarify the extent to which internal parliamentary actions, especially disciplinary measures, can be subjected to judicial review when allegations of constitutional breaches are raised.
As the matter awaits further action at the Supreme Court, the prolonged legal confrontation continues to draw national attention, with many Nigerians keenly watching for a final resolution that could set a landmark precedent on legislative discipline, separation of powers, and the protection of elected representatives’ rights under the Constitution.
