Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing the Kogi Central Senatorial District has threatened to sue the Clerk of the National Assembly if he fails to facilitate her resumption of legislative duties by Monday, 15th September 2025.
In a letter to the Clerk of the National Assembly, through her lawyer, Michael Jonathan Numa, SAN, dated September 10 but received on September 11, with Ref: MJN/NA/04/09/25, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan warned that she would initiate potential proceedings including, “committal for contempt; disciplinary action for breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers; liability for instigating breach of the peace with potential implications for national security; and any other remedies available under the law.”
SaharaReporters reported on September 9, that the Clerk to the National Assembly had told Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan that her suspension from the Senate could not be addressed until the judicial process was concluded and formally reviewed.
In a letter dated September 4, signed by the Acting Clerk to the National Assembly, Dr. Yahaya Danzaria, it was claimed that the issue of her suspension remains subjudice.
With Ref: NASS/CNA/29/VOL.1/41 and titled: “Re: Notice Of Resumption,” the Clerk stated, “I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter notifying this office of your intention to resume sitting and other legislative duties in the Senate on the 4th of September, 2025, which you claim is the date of expiration of the 6 months suspension imposed on you by the Senate.”
“I am further directed to inform you that your suspension was with effect from Thursday 6th March, 2025 and draw your attention to the fact that the subject matter of your suspension is presently before the Court of Appeal.
“The matter therefore remains subjudice, 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.”
But Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan through her lawyer, faulted the Clerk’s line of arguments advising him to reconsider his “untenable stance and comply with the Constitution and extant judicial orders”.
The senator’s counsel argues that her suspension expired on September 6, 2025, and that the Clerk has no authority to prevent her resumption.
The lawyer’s letter states, “Your letter fails to disclose on whose directive you purported to act. By assuming powers you do not possess, you have acted ultra vires, and placed both yourself personally and your office in contempt of the Constitution and binding judicial orders.”
The senator’s team claims that the Clerk’s actions are part of a pattern of judicial defiance by the Senate and that the suspension was unlawful, excessive, and unconstitutional.
The letter titled: “RE: NOTICE OF RESUMPTION,” partly read: “We are Counsel to Senator Natasha Hadiza Akpoti-Uduaghan, the duly elected Senator representing the Kogi Central Senatorial District, and on whose behalf we write in response to your above-referenced letter.
“Our client acknowledges receipt of your letter dated 4th September 2025, with reference number NASS/CNA/29/VOL.1/41, wherein you asserted that the Clerk of the National Assembly cannot take any administrative action towards her planned resumption on the ground that the matter is “sub judice and until a final judicial pronouncement is taken and the Senate formally reviews the suspension in light of the Court pronouncement.”
“With respect, the position conveyed in your letter is untenable. It is either ill-advised or deliberately contrived to deprive our client of the constitutional mandate freely bestowed upon her by the constituents of Kogi Central Senatorial District, and therefore amounts to a politically expedient attempt to subvert the sovereign will of the people.
“It is imperative to restate that our client’s right to resume her parliamentary duties, after the expiration of her fixed-term suspension, is rooted in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and cannot be abridged by administrative fiat or internal Senate maneuverings. Sections 68 and 69 of the Constitution circumscribe the limited circumstances under which a Senator’s seat may be declared vacant.
“Nowhere does the Constitution empower the Clerk or even the Senate itself to, by unilateral action, extinguish the sovereign will of the electorate,” the letter SaharaReporters obtained on Thursday, read.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer insisted that the content of Clerk’s letter, amounts to a “convenient invocation and misuse of the sub judice rule, tailored to suit the shifting narrative of the Senate Leadership.”
Citing instances, the lawyer recalled that on the 3rd day of March, 2025, “our client anticipating her suspension as openly professed by the Senate President; Senator Godswill Akpabio during Plenary on the 20th day of February, 2025 approached the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, challenging, inter alia, the referral of the events of that day on the floor of the Senate to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct for being ultra vires the provisions of the Senate Standing Orders 2023.
“On the 4th day of March, 2025, the Federal High Court, coram Egwuatu J., granted an interim order restraining the Senate and its Committee from proceeding with the disciplinary action pursuant to the said referral, pending when cause would be shown on the return date of the 10th day of March, 2025.
“Upon receipt of the Court Order, the Senate Standing Committee in question rescheduled its sitting from the 11th day of March, 2025 to the 5th day of March, 2025 in a deliberate attempt to overreach the judicial process. Indeed, the Committee expressly acknowledged the existence of the valid Order in its report while dismissing her petition on grounds of the subjudice rule, but proceeded with the referral on her alleged misconduct as expressed in its report particularly at paragraphs 7.0 (2) and (3) wherein it stated as follows:
“That Under Order 40(7) of the Senate Standing Orders 2023 as amended which states that ” Senate should not receive or deliberate on any matter which actions are pending in any court of law. The Petition of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan being a matter before a law court of competent jurisdiction, the committee, therefore cannot deliberate on the petition.
“The committee noted that Distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan went to court to seek an interim order preventing the Senate and it’s committee from exercising it’s constitutional duties as enshrined in Section 88(1) of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 as amended, the committee felt duty bound to exercise its constitutional functions”.
He added, “In spite of its knowledge of the subsisting Court Order, the Senate nevertheless proceeded to suspend our client for an excessive period of six (6) months, together with all accompanying benefits and emoluments.
“While the suit was pending and the court order remained in force, your office facilitated and enabled the unlawful enforcement of the suspension by restricting our client’s access to the National Assembly and seizing her emoluments, in clear breach of your oath of office and the Code of Conduct for Public Officers,” the Senator’s lawyer reminded the Clerk.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Counsel emphasised that the Clerk’s reliance on the sub judice rule is a grave misapplication of its scope.
“The doctrine is at best a self-imposed restraint on parliamentary debate concerning matters pending before the courts. It has never been, and cannot be, a lawful basis to deny administrative compliance with judicial orders or to frustrate the exercise of constitutional rights after the expiration of the tenure of fixed term suspension.
“To be clear, our client’s resumption of her legislative duties does not prejudice the pending appeal. It is rather your obstruction that prejudices the outcome of the appeal by presuming that the Senate will succeed. Pending appeals cannot justify extending a sanction which, by its own terms, has expired.”
Giving background of judicial defiance by the Senate and the office of the Clerk, the lawyer stated: “On 4th March 2025, Justice Egwuatu of the Federal High Court issued an interim order restraining the Senate from proceeding with disciplinary action against our client. Despite knowledge of this subsisting order (as acknowledged in the Committee’s report, paragraphs 7.0-7.01), the Senate proceeded to suspend our client for six months. Your office enabled the enforcement of this suspension in breach of your oath of office and the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.
“On 4th July 2025, Justice Binta Nyako declared the suspension unlawful, excessive, and unconstitutional, and directed that the Senate recall our client to resume her duties. Instead of compliance, your office resisted her resumption on the spurious basis that the judgment was “advisory” until considered by the Senate.
“Your present letter of 4th September 2025 seeks to continue the suspension through administrative interpretation, without any fresh resolution of the Senate or valid court order.”
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan insisted that this recurring pattern of disobedience undermines the authority of the judiciary and offends section 287 of the Constitution, “which binds all persons and authorities including your office to enforce court decisions.”
The letter added, “Assuming without conceding that the suspension was valid, it was imposed for a fixed term of six months commencing on 6th March 2025. That term expired on or about 6th September 2025. At that point, the Senate became functus officio and lost any power to extend, enlarge, or reinvent the punishment. Any attempt to prevent her resumption beyond the expiry of the penalty, amounts to punishing her twice for the same alleged misconduct.”
Her lawyer reminded that as Clerk of the National Assembly, “you are not an elected member of the Senate. Your functions are purely ministerial: to record, transmit, and implement decisions duly made by the Senate or directed by the courts. To the best of our client’s knowledge, no Senate resolution exists extending our client’s suspension or imposing any new sanction from the same alleged misconduct.”