By Mercy Gadia Adi
The Senate has approached the Supreme Court to challenge decisions of the Court of Appeal arising from the legal tussle over the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, a move that raises far-reaching constitutional questions on parliamentary privilege, internal legislative procedure and the limits of judicial intervention in legislative affairs.
The appeal, filed at the apex court in Abuja, seeks to regularise and sustain the Senate’s challenge to earlier rulings which faulted the six-month suspension imposed on the Kogi Central lawmaker. Listed as respondents are 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, Senator Neda Imasuen.
Read Also:Natasha Vows Not to Apologize to Senate, Labels Suspension Illegal
The dispute arose from a Senate plenary session in February 2025, during which Akpoti-Uduaghan raised issues bordering on parliamentary privilege and alleged procedural irregularities. The matter was subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, a process that culminated in her suspension from legislative duties.
Dissatisfied, the senator approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, alleging violations of her constitutional right to fair hearing and non-compliance with the Senate Standing Orders. In a judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, the trial court examined critical questions relating to legislative autonomy, parliamentary discipline and the scope of judicial oversight.
Following proceedings at the Court of Appeal, the Senate escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact, and an order deeming its notice of appeal and brief of argument as properly filed and served.
In the application brought pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court Act and relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Senate argued that the appeal raises substantial constitutional and procedural issues deserving the attention of the apex court. It maintained that the Senate acted within its powers under Section 60 of the Constitution, which authorised the National Assembly to regulate its own procedure.
The legal team further contended that the presiding officer of the Senate is not mandatorily required to immediately rule on every point of privilege raised during plenary, and that the Senate lawfully activated its internal disciplinary mechanisms in response to what it described as disorderly conduct.
In court documents, the Senate urged the Supreme Court to prioritise substantive justice over procedural technicalities, arguing that a refusal to entertain the appeal would amount to a denial of fair hearing. The documents also accused Akpoti-Uduaghan of breaching appellate rules on formatting and page limits in her brief of argument.
Akpoti-Uduaghan has consistently maintained that her suspension was unlawful, excessive and carried out in violation of her right to fair hearing. She argued that the Senate failed to comply with its Standing Orders before referring her to the ethics committee and imposing disciplinary sanctions, thereby denying her a fair opportunity to defend herself.
Her legal counsel has since been formally served with the Supreme Court processes, paving the way for a full legal contest at the apex court.
The dispute also involves a related contempt proceeding arising from a social media post made by the senator during the pendency of the suit. The Federal High Court had ruled that the post violated a subsisting restraining order, imposing a fine and ordering a public apology. Akpoti-Uduaghan has challenged that decision on appeal, arguing that the alleged contempt was criminal in nature and required strict compliance with statutory procedures.