The National Assembly Management has formally blocked Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan from resuming her legislative duties, informing her that a pending court case means she cannot return to the Senate.
This is despite her belief that her six-month suspension has ended.
In a letter signed by the Acting Clerk to the National Assembly (Ag. CNA), Dr. Yahaya Danzaria, the management stated that her suspension remains in force.
The reason given is that the matter is currently before the Court of Appeal. The letter, dated 4th September 2025, was seen by a correspondent.
The Parliament’s letter was a direct response to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s own notification that she planned to return to the Senate on 4th September. She believed this date marked the end of her suspension. However, the National Assembly clarified that her suspension officially began on 6th March 2025. They emphasised that the issue is still sub judice, a legal term meaning a case is under judgement or awaiting a court’s decision.
Because the case is still active in court, the National Assembly management said it is unable to take any action.
“The matter, therefore, remains sub judice, and until the judicial process is concluded and the Senate formally reviews the suspension in the light of the court’s pronouncement, no administrative action can be taken by this office to facilitate your resumption,” the letter read.
It also added that the senator “will be duly notified of the Senate’s decision on the matter as soon as it is resolved.”
This situation follows a ruling from the Federal High Court in Abuja, which found in favour of the Senate. The senator, who represents Kogi Central, was dissatisfied with this outcome and took the matter to the appellate court to seek a remedy.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was originally suspended in March 2025 by a resolution of the Senate. The suspension was for alleged misconduct following a public disagreement with the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, over the seating arrangement during a plenary session.
The National Assembly has insisted that it must wait for the Court of Appeal’s final verdict before any further steps can be taken.
Discussion about this post