By Deborah Hassan
The suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of Kogi Central has continued to generate debate about the powers of the Senate, the role of the Clerk to the National Assembly (CNA), and the constitutional right of citizens to representation.
On March 6, 2025, the Senate suspended Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months over alleged misconduct. At the end of the period, she wrote to the CNA notifying the office of her readiness to return to her legislative duties. She argued that since the six months had elapsed, she was entitled to resume her seat.
Her legal representatives also wrote to the CNA, contending that the suspension had run its course and that any further denial of her access to the chamber would amount to a violation of her rights and that of her constituents.
The Clerk’s office, however, responded that it lacked the authority to act on her request. In a press release issued on September 15, 2025, the CNA explained that it functions only as an administrative arm of the legislature and cannot reverse or interpret Senate decisions.
The statement further clarified that the suspension issue was before the Court of Appeal, and that any change in her status must either come from a fresh Senate resolution or a binding court order.
The Red Chamber also insisted that suspensions and disciplinary actions are exclusively determined by resolutions of the chamber. Its spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu, stressed that the Clerk plays no role in recalling a suspended senator and that only plenary can take such a decision.
This position is based on Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers each chamber of the National Assembly to regulate its own procedure.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had earlier approached the Federal High Court to challenge her suspension. She asked the court to declare it unconstitutional, to nullify the Senate’s resolution, and to bar the chamber from suspending her in the future without legal basis.
The Federal High Court did not grant her prayers but acknowledged that her constituents deserve representation. It also held that the Senate acted within its disciplinary powers. She has since appealed the decision, and the matter is still pending before the Court of Appeal.
The dispute is not without precedent. Several senators in the past have challenged their suspensions in court, with mixed outcomes.
In 2017, Senator Ali Ndume was suspended for six months and only returned through plenary resolution. In 2018, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege’s suspension was declared unconstitutional by the Federal High Court, which ruled that legislative chambers cannot deny constituents of representation. The Senate initially resisted the ruling but later allowed him back. In 2024, Senator Abdul Ningi was suspended and returned after his suspension expired, but again, plenary had to acknowledge it before he resumed.
These examples show a pattern: while courts have consistently limited the power of suspensions, compliance by the Senate has been slow and often reluctant.
At the heart of the Natasha case is the question of whether the expiration of six months automatically entitles her to return or whether Senate plenary retains the final say. Her lawyers argue that she is already reinstated by law, while the Senate insists that only a fresh resolution or a court order can change her status. The CNA, caught in the middle, has made clear that it cannot act beyond administrative functions.
The controversy highlights the tension between legislative autonomy and judicial authority in Nigeria’s democracy. While courts have ruled that prolonged suspensions undermine constitutional representation, the Senate has consistently relied on its Standing Orders and plenary powers.
However, the matter raises a critical issue: should the right of constituents to representation take precedence over the Senate’s insistence on internal discipline? The resolution of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case, whether through the Court of Appeal or a fresh Senate resolution, will provide the next test of that balance.