Lawmaker representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, on Tuesday, was denied entry into the Senate chambers, igniting a fresh constitutional standoff at the National Assembly.
The embattled lawmaker, whose six-month suspension was recently nullified by a Federal High Court, accused the Senate leadership of outright defiance of a judicial pronouncement, declaring that the “Senate has become lawbreakers.”
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s attempt to resume her legislative duties comes after a Federal High Court ruling on July 4, 2025, which declared her suspension unconstitutional and excessive.
The court’s decision mandated her reinstatement, a verdict the Senator had formally communicated to the Senate through two distinct letters, indicating her intention to resume on Tuesday, July 22.
Speaking to journalists at the National Assembly gate, Akpoti-Uduaghan expressed her resolve to reclaim her seat.
“It’s about me and a duly elected senator walking into the chambers to resume my constituted duties as I was elected and mandated by the good people of Kogi Central and INEC,” she stated, emphasising her mandate from her constituents.
READ ALSO:
Her attempt to enter the chambers was met with a significant deployment of security personnel.
“It’s unfortunate that we got in today, which is the 22nd of July, 2025, having duly notified the Senate through two letters that I will be resuming functions today.
“As a matter of fact, I’m disappointed on two grounds. One is the number of armed policemen that we met outside, you know, all well kitted with guns, charged at a female senator who is unarmed.
“The second thing is the fact that the Senate, under the leadership of Akpabio, of course, have decided to become law breakers, and by denying the entrance into the chambers to resume my team,” Akpoti-Uduaghan asserted, directly challenging the integrity of the legislative body.
Addressing what she described as attempts to “twist a narrative” by the Senate’s team, Akpoti-Uduaghan clarified the legal implications of the court’s decision.
Citing Section 318 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, she explained that a court’s “decision” encompasses more than just an “order,” including judicial decrees, sentences, convictions, and recommendations.
She argued that even if the court’s pronouncement was termed a “recommendation,” it remained a binding judicial decision.
Further buttressing her point, she referenced Section 287, Subsection 3 of the 1999 Constitution, which explicitly states that “decisions… of any court” are binding on “every authority.”
Akpoti-Uduaghan also claimed that the Senate had appealed the judgment.
Displaying a document to journalists, she clarified, “It is clear that it is not the National Assembly, nor is it the Senate. It’s [Senator Akpabio] himself… The National Assembly has not appealed that judgment. The Senate has not appealed the judgment.”
She further revealed that Senator Akpabio had joined the National Assembly, the Senate, and the Ethics Committee as respondents in his appeal, implying a legal conflict within the Senate leadership itself.