Senate President Akpabio Takes Natasha Suspension Case to Supreme Court
In a significant escalation of Nigeria's ongoing parliamentary legal drama, Senate President Godswill Akpabio has formally approached the Supreme Court to challenge appellate decisions connected to the controversial suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. This development marks a crucial turning point in a case that has captivated political observers nationwide, raising fundamental questions about legislative authority, constitutional rights, and the delicate balance of power within Nigeria's democratic framework.
Legal Documents Reveal Supreme Court Motion
Court documents obtained on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, confirm that Senator Akpabio has filed a comprehensive motion at Nigeria's highest judicial body seeking to regularize and maintain his appeal regarding the Kogi Central lawmaker's suspension. The case, which originated from parliamentary proceedings in February 2025, has evolved into a landmark constitutional dispute with potential implications for Nigeria's entire legislative system.
The Supreme Court suit, filed in Abuja, lists Senator Akpabio as the appellant, while respondents include Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan herself, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Nigerian Senate as an institution, and Senator Neda Imasuen in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions.
Origins of the Parliamentary Dispute
The conflict traces back to a plenary session where Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan raised concerns about parliamentary privilege and alleged procedural irregularities. This intervention triggered a disciplinary process that eventually led to her suspension from legislative activities, a decision she immediately challenged through Nigeria's judicial system.
Dissatisfied with the disciplinary action, the Kogi Central senator approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that her constitutional right to a fair hearing had been violated and that the Senate had failed to comply with its own Standing Orders. The trial court's July 2025 judgment addressed profound questions about parliamentary privilege, internal legislative procedures, and the appropriate scope of judicial intervention in legislative affairs.
Akpabio's Supreme Court Arguments
Following developments at the Court of Appeal, Senator Akpabio has now escalated the matter to Nigeria's apex court, seeking several specific legal remedies:
- Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal
- Leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact
- An order deeming his notice of appeal and brief of argument as properly filed and served
The Senate President's legal team, invoking the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court Act, and relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), contends that this appeal raises substantial constitutional and procedural questions deserving the Supreme Court's attention. They specifically reference Section 60 of the Constitution, which grants the National Assembly authority to regulate its own procedure.
Central to Akpabio's argument is the position that the Senate's presiding officer is not mandatorily required to immediately rule on every point of privilege raised during proceedings, and that the Senate properly activated its internal disciplinary mechanisms in response to what it characterized as disorderly conduct during plenary sessions.
Natasha's Counterarguments and Legal Position
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan maintains a consistent position that her suspension was unlawful, excessive, and executed in violation of her fundamental right to a fair hearing. She argues that the Senate failed to follow its own Standing Orders before referring her to the ethics committee and imposing disciplinary sanctions, thereby denying her adequate opportunity to defend herself properly.
On January 21, 2026, it was confirmed that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan's legal counsel had been formally served with the Supreme Court processes, effectively bringing all parties before the court and setting the stage for a comprehensive legal contest at Nigeria's highest judicial level.
Related Contempt Proceedings
The case also involves related contempt proceedings stemming from a social media post made by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan during the pendency of the original suit. The Federal High Court ruled this post violated a subsisting restraining order, imposing a fine and requiring a public apology. The senator has challenged this decision on appeal, arguing that the alleged contempt was ex facie curiae and criminal in nature, requiring strict compliance with statutory procedures.
Broader Constitutional Implications
Legal observers across Nigeria emphasize that the Supreme Court's eventual ruling could have profound implications for the country's constitutional democracy. The case is expected to help define crucial boundaries between legislative autonomy and judicial oversight, while clarifying the extent to which internal parliamentary actions—particularly disciplinary measures—can be subjected to judicial review when allegations of constitutional breaches are raised.
As this prolonged legal confrontation continues to unfold, it draws sustained national attention, with many Nigerians eagerly anticipating a final resolution that could establish landmark precedents regarding legislative discipline, separation of powers, and the protection of elected representatives' constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's decision may well reshape parliamentary procedures and constitutional interpretations for years to come.
