The legal confrontation surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has escalated to Nigeria’s highest court, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio formally approaching the Supreme Court to challenge developments arising from the case.
Documents obtained in Abuja on Wednesday show that Akpabio has filed an application at the apex court seeking to validate and sustain his appeal against earlier appellate proceedings linked to the Senate’s decision to suspend the Kogi Central lawmaker. The case has continued to attract widespread public attention, touching on issues of constitutional rights, legislative authority and judicial oversight.
In the suit before the Supreme Court, Akpabio is listed as the appellant, while the respondents include 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, Senator Neda Imasuen.
The dispute traces back to a Senate plenary session held in February 2025, when Akpoti-Uduaghan raised concerns bordering on parliamentary privilege and alleged breaches of procedure. The Senate later referred the matter to its Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee, which eventually recommended her suspension from legislative duties.
Dissatisfied with the disciplinary action, Akpoti-Uduaghan approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that the suspension violated her right to fair hearing and breached provisions of the Senate Standing Orders as well as the Constitution.
In a judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, the trial court examined questions relating to legislative privilege, internal parliamentary processes and the extent to which courts can intervene in the affairs of the legislature.
Following subsequent proceedings at the Court of Appeal, Akpabio has now taken the matter further by asking the Supreme Court for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal on grounds involving mixed law and fact. He also wants the court to regularise his notice of appeal and accompanying brief of argument.
In his application, filed under the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court Act and the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Akpabio argued that the case raises significant constitutional and procedural issues deserving the attention of the apex court. His legal team maintained that the Senate acted within the powers granted to it under Section 60 of the Constitution, which allows the National Assembly to regulate its internal procedures.
The appellant also contended that the Senate President is not required to rule immediately on every point of privilege raised during plenary and that the disciplinary process followed was lawful and triggered by what was described as disorderly conduct.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, on her part, has consistently insisted that her suspension was unlawful, disproportionate and imposed without due process. She argued that the Senate failed to follow its own Standing Orders before referring her case to the ethics committee and imposing sanctions, thereby denying her a fair opportunity to be heard.
Her legal team confirmed that Supreme Court processes were served on her on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, noting that the filing of the appeal formally brings the dispute before the apex court for full adjudication.
The broader legal battle also includes a related contempt issue arising from a social media post made by the senator while the case was pending. The Federal High Court had ruled that the post violated an existing restraining order, imposing a fine and directing her to issue a public apology.
Akpoti-Uduaghan has appealed that decision as well, arguing that the alleged contempt was criminal in nature and occurred outside the court, requiring strict adherence to statutory procedures.
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could significantly shape Nigeria’s constitutional landscape, particularly in defining the balance between legislative independence and judicial review, as well as clarifying how far courts can go in scrutinising internal disciplinary actions of parliament when constitutional rights are alleged to have been breached.
