The legal dispute over the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, has escalated as Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed an appeal at the Supreme Court of Nigeria seeking final determination of the case, legal filings show.
The suit marks the latest phase in the prolonged constitutional battle over the legality of the disciplinary action.
Court documents filed by Akpabio name him as the appellant with respondents including 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.
The motion seeks extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, leave to appeal on mixed law and fact, and an order validating the notice of appeal and brief of argument that he filed.
The dispute dates back to February 2025, when Akpoti‑Uduaghan raised concerns during a Senate plenary session about parliamentary privilege and alleged procedural irregularities.
The matter was later referred to the Senate’s Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, which recommended her suspension from Senate activities.
Unhappy with the outcome, Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan challenged the process in the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that the suspension violated her constitutional right to a fair hearing and did not comply with the Senate’s Standing Orders. On July 4, 2025, the trial court ruled that the suspension was excessive and unconstitutional.
The case then progressed to the Court of Appeal, where further legal issues arose. Dissatisfied with the appellate court’s handling of his filings, Akpabio has now turned to the Supreme Court, seeking broader judicial review of both procedural and substantive questions.
In his application to the Supreme Court, Akpabio argues that the dispute raises constitutional and procedural issues that merit the apex court’s attention, particularly regarding the extent of the National Assembly’s powers to regulate its internal affairs under Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He maintains that the Senate acted within its constitutional authority in initiating its disciplinary process.
Akpoti‑Uduaghan, however, has maintained that her suspension was unlawful, contending that the Senate failed to follow its own rules before referring her to the ethics committee and imposing sanctions, thereby denying her a fair opportunity to defend herself.
Her legal team has been formally served with the Supreme Court processes.
The dispute also includes a related contempt issue arising from a social media post by Akpoti‑Uduaghan during the pendency of the court actions.
A Federal High Court had ruled that the post violated a restraining order, imposed a fine and ordered a public apology; that ruling is also under appeal.
Legal analysts note that the Supreme Court’s decision could set an important precedent on the scope of legislative discipline, the limits of judicial intervention in parliamentary affairs, and the protection of elected representatives’ rights under the Constitution.
With the case now before the Supreme Court and all parties formally joined in the appeal, Nigeria’s highest court is expected to deliver a definitive ruling on the matter.
The outcome will have lasting implications for how legislative bodies exercise disciplinary authority and how courts balance internal parliamentary governance with constitutional guarantees of fair hearing.
