THE Chairman, Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Adeyemi Adaramodu, has given conditions based on which the Red Chamber would reinstate suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Adaramodu who reacted to the ruling of a Federal High Court on the matter, made it clear that the Red Chamber would not immediately reinstate senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, until she apologises as directed by court.
Adaramodu said that the court judgment did not override the Senate’s constitutional powers to discipline its members.
In March, the Senate suspended Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months over alleged gross misconduct, following her face-off with the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, over the sitting arrangement.
Tensions intensified when Akpoti-Uduaghan, on national television, accused Akpabio of punishing her for rejecting his alleged sexual advances.
The Peoples Democratic Party senator submitted a petition to the Senate, alleging that she was sexually harassed by Akpabio, an allegation the Senate President had since denied.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, challenged her suspension in court.
Delivering her judgment on the matter, Justice Nyako faulted the provision of chapter eight of the Senate Standing Rules as well as Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers & Privileges Act, declaring both as overreaching.
The court stressed that the two legislations failed to specify the maximum period that a serving lawmaker could be suspended from office.
Justice Nyako stated that while the Senate had the authority to discipline its members, such disciplinary actions must not strip citizens of representation in the National Assembly.
She noted that since the Senate was constitutionally required to sit for only 181 days in a legislative year, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s 180-day suspension amounted to denying the people of Kogi Central effective participation in national governance.
“The court is not saying that the Senate lacks the power to sanction a member. However, such sanctions must not negate the constitutional right of constituents to be represented in parliament,” Justice Nyako ruled.
The court, however, found Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt over a satirical apology she posted on her Facebook page on April 27.
Justice Nyako held that after reviewing the post and the application before her instituted by the third respondent, she was satisfied that it was linked to the suspension matter before the court and therefore found the plaintiff guilty of contempt.
The judge ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan to publish an apology in two national dailies and on her Facebook page within seven days. She also imposed a fine of N5million.
Responding to a question, Adaramodu said: “Which judgment are we appealing when they (court) said the Senate has the right to discipline its erring members?
“The court has not ousted the Senate’s statutory right to punish any erring senator.
“It was established that the senator in question erred. The court has already told her to go and do some things, like restitution, so after the restitution, the Senate will now sit again and consider the content of that restitution, and that will inform our next line of action.”
According to Senator Adaramodu, the Senate would only reconvene to deliberate on the matter after Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan had complied with the court’s directives.
“The onus is no more on us now; it is already on her doorstep to go and apologise. Once she does that, then the Senate will sit and determine how to deal with her matter.
“The first reaction now will not be from us. The court has ruled, so once she takes the step to redress and does what the court has directed her to do, then the Senate will sit and look at the content of her reaction as prescribed by the court,” he said.
Addressing journalists after the judgment, the Counsel to the Senate, Paul Dauda, SAN, described the ruling as a partial victory for the Senate, particularly on the issue of civil contempt arising from social media posts made during the case.
Dauda said: “The first application filed by the Senate, that no social media posts should have been made, was decided in our favour. The court directed that the satirical apology be taken down and that a proper apology be published in two national dailies. Additionally, damages of N5million were awarded to be paid to the court.”
On the substantive ruling regarding the suspension, Dauda noted that the Senate’s authority to discipline its members was not in dispute.
“It appears the court affirmed that the Senate, as an institution, has the right to discipline its members. While members are elected to represent constituencies, they are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the Senate’s standing rules,” he said.
He explained that the court did not order Akpoti-Uduaghan’s reinstatement but merely suggested that the Senate could consider recalling her.
“There was no relief asking for the suspension to be lifted. The judge only made what we call an obiter dictum, a non-binding remark, that the suspension may have been excessive. We will consult with our colleagues, read the full judgment, and respond accordingly,” he added.