ABUJA — The Court of Appeal in Abuja has ruled that the Senate acted within its constitutional and procedural powers when it suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (Kogi Central) for misconduct, while separately setting aside the contempt proceedings and ₦5 million fine imposed on her in a related dispute.
In a unanimous judgment by a three-member panel, the appellate court held that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s parliamentary privilege and constitutional rights were not violated by the suspension. Reports of the ruling say the court found that the Senate’s internal disciplinary authority, including powers under its standing rules, was validly exercised in the circumstances before it.
The court also addressed the February 20, 2025 plenary confrontation over seat allocation and speaking rights. In the lead judgment, Justice A. B. Muhammed reportedly held that the Senate President was entitled to deny her the floor when she attempted to speak from a seat not officially allocated to her, since chamber rules require members to speak from assigned seats.
However, the appellate court overturned the contempt findings linked to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s satirical apology directed at Senate President Godswill Akpabio and nullified the ₦5 million penalty. Multiple reports indicate the court found procedural defects in how the contempt process was initiated and pursued.
The Senate has welcomed the verdict as affirmation of legislative autonomy and separation of powers, with spokesperson comments describing the decision as a confirmation that lawful parliamentary discipline can stand where no clear constitutional breach is established.
The ruling lands against a politically charged backdrop. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s original suspension in 2025 followed disputes over chamber procedure and her allegations against Senate leadership, which had already triggered national debate over gender, accountability, and parliamentary process.
For now, the legal outcome is split: the Senate’s suspension decision remains intact, but the contempt sanction does not. That distinction is likely to shape the next phase of legal and political arguments over limits of parliamentary discipline versus procedural fairness in enforcement actions.
