Court didn’t order us to reinstate Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senate says

The Senate has clarified that there is no binding court order mandating the immediate recall of the Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was suspended from legislative duties for six months.

The legislative chamber said it had thoroughly reviewed the judgment delivered by Binta Nyako, a judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, and discovered that she did not issue any explicit directive compelling it to reinstate the senator.

PREMIUM TIMES reports that the Senate’s spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu, stated this in a statement on Sunday.

The statement was issued in response to a letter addressed to the Clerk of the National Assembly by Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan, through her lawyer, Michael Numa (SAN).

In the letter, the senator referenced the court’s ruling which declared her six-month suspension as excessive, unconstitutional, and a breach of her constituents’ right to representation.

She expressed her readiness to return to legislative duties on Tuesday, 15 July, and urged the National Assembly to treat her notification with urgency to avoid contempt of court.

However, Mr Adaramodu, in the statement, emphasised that the Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order from the court made no declaratory or injunctive pronouncement mandating Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan’s reinstatement.

“The Senate wishes to state categorically and for the avoidance of doubt that the Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order did not contain any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension. The learned judge, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, merely made advisory observations on the length of the suspension, which are not enforceable or binding in law,” he said.

He added that the Senate retains its disciplinary powers under Section 60 of the Nigerian constitution and these powers were not invalidated or curtailed by the court’s decision.

“The enrolled order clearly demonstrates that the Senate’s disciplinary powers under Section 60 of the Constitution remain intact and were not invalidated. Nowhere in the judgment did the court issue a declaratory or injunctive order mandating her recall,” he said.

Senate to deliberate further

While rejecting the request for an automatic recall, Mr Adaramodu said the Senate would deliberate on the court’s judgment and take a constitutional position on the matter.

“However, the Senate will consider and deliberate on this judgment and consequently take a constitutionally informed position on the matter and convey the outcome to the affected Senator and the public.

“The Senate remains committed to the principles of constitutional democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law. Subsequently, it will not allow its processes or integrity to be undermined by premature interpretations of ongoing legal proceedings or by misapplications of constitutional provisions. In conclusion, there is no legal basis upon which Senator Natasha can resume legislative duties at this time,” the spokesperson said.

What the court ruling actually says

The judge issued a judgment in the senator’s favour, saying that suspending an elected lawmaker for six months effectively denies a constituency its right to representation.

Although the court advised the Senate to recall Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan, it stopped short of issuing a binding order to that effect.

In her judgment, Mrs Nyako also found Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of civil contempt for a satirical social media post which the judge said was in disregard of court proceedings.

PREMIUM TIMES reports that the court, however, declined to sentence her to prison. It instead imposed a N5 million fine and directed the senator to issue a public apology in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page within seven days

The argument between Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Senate shows the extent of parliamentary disciplinary powers and the limits of judicial intervention. While courts can review legislative actions for constitutionality, they traditionally refrain from directly interfering in internal parliamentary affairs.

Analysts argue the final resolution may shape how future disciplinary cases involving lawmakers are handled, especially regarding the balance between institutional autonomy and constitutional accountability.