Appeal Court Affirms Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Suspension, Rules Senate Acted Within Its Powers

Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa

Abuja, Nigeria — In a significant judicial development on Monday, February 9, 2026, the Court of Appeal in Abuja upheld the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, affirming that the Nigerian Senate acted within its constitutional and procedural authority when it disciplined the lawmaker for misconduct. The appellate court’s ruling marks a pivotal moment in a prolonged legal dispute surrounding parliamentary discipline and legislative autonomy. 

The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that the Senate’s actions did not infringe on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s parliamentary privileges or her fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. The judgment confirmed that the Senate, as a legislative body, possesses the authority to enforce disciplinary measures against its members under established rules and constitutional provisions. 

The appellate court’s affirmation follows months of litigation stemming from events in March 2025, when the Senate suspended Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months. She was disciplined over an altercation during a plenary session and subsequent conduct that Senate leadership characterised as disorderly and in breach of Senate Standing Orders. At the time, critics of the suspension argued that imposing such a lengthy sanction effectively deprived her constituents of representation, and they questioned whether proper procedures were followed. 

Akpoti-Uduaghan challenged her suspension in court, initially securing a ruling from a Federal High Court in Abuja that described the six-month suspension as excessive and unlawful. That earlier judgment directed her recall to the Senate and imposed a fine for contempt, which ignited heated debate over the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. However, that high court ruling was put on hold pending appeal. 

In delivering the appellate court’s ruling on Monday, the panel emphasised that the Senate’s disciplinary processes fall within its internal regulatory framework and constitutional mandate. The court held that the Senate’s Standing Orders — which govern conduct, debate and discipline within the chamber — permit appropriate sanctions for breaches of parliamentary decorum, and that these internal measures cannot be easily overridden by external judicial pronouncements in ways that would disrupt legislative autonomy. 

Legal analysts note that the appellate court’s decision also struck down the contempt fine and the requirement for an apology that had been imposed by the Federal High Court in relation to separate contempt proceedings arising from conduct during the litigation process. The appellate panel found that aspects of those rulings had exceeded the lower court’s jurisdiction, reinforcing the principle that legislative houses enjoy broad discretion in managing their affairs. 

The litigation has drawn extensive public and political attention, with opinions divided along legal, constitutional and political lines. Advocates of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s position argued that her suspension was not only procedurally flawed but also effectively disenfranchised the electorate in her Kogi Central senatorial district for an extended period — a fundamental concern in a representative democracy. 

Supporters of the Senate’s stance, including legal experts in legislative affairs, countered that parliamentary discipline is an internal function of legislative governance, and that courts must tread carefully to avoid undue interference. The appellate court’s ruling aligns with that perspective, reinforcing a degree of legislative self-governance while still acknowledging constitutional safeguards. 

In response to the ruling, stakeholders across Nigeria’s political landscape reacted with a mix of approval and concern. Some legislators welcomed the judgment as a reaffirmation of the Senate’s authority to maintain order and discipline among its members. Civil society groups and legal reform advocates, however, reiterated calls for clearer statutory limits on disciplinary sanctions to prevent extended suspensions that may impede representative accountability and diminish constituents’ voice in the legislature.

The case also remains subject to ongoing legal activity. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team has indicated plans to pursue further appeals — including a potential application to the Supreme Court — in efforts to preserve her legislative seat and exhaust all available judicial avenues. Government lawyers have similarly articulated their intent to defend the appellate decision if further proceedings are brought before the apex court.

Observers say the ultimate resolution of this dispute could have wider implications for how legislative discipline is exercised and reviewed in Nigeria, particularly in circumstances where punitive measures intersect with electoral representation and constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeal’s reaffirmation of the Senate’s authority to suspend its members thus stands as a defining moment in the ongoing dialogue on legislative powers, judicial oversight and the balance of democratic governance in Nigeria.

📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews