Akpabio Heads To Supreme Court Over Suspension Of Senator Natasha
Senate President Godswill Akpabio has approached the Supreme Court to challenge decisions of the Court of Appeal arising from the controversy surrounding the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan from legislative duties.
Court documents indicate that Akpabio, acting in his official capacity as President of the Senate, has filed fresh processes at the apex court seeking to regularise and sustain his appeal against rulings connected to the matter.
The suit, filed at the Supreme Court in Abuja, lists Akpabio as the appellant, while the respondents include Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, Senator Neda Imasuen.
The dispute originated from a Senate plenary session in February 2025, during which Akpoti-Uduaghan raised issues relating to parliamentary privilege and alleged procedural irregularities. The matter was subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, a process that culminated in her suspension from legislative activities.
Dissatisfied with the action, the Kogi Central senator approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, alleging violations of her constitutional right to fair hearing and non-compliance with the Senate Standing Orders.
In a judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, the trial court examined key questions bordering on parliamentary privilege, internal legislative procedures and the extent of judicial intervention in legislative affairs.
Following proceedings at the Court of Appeal, Akpabio escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact, as well as an order deeming his notice of appeal and brief of argument as properly filed and served.
In the application brought pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court Act and relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Akpabio argued that the appeal raises substantial constitutional and procedural issues deserving the attention of the apex court.
He contended that the Senate acted within its powers under Section 60 of the Constitution, which authorises the National Assembly to regulate its own procedures. His legal team further argued that the presiding officer of the Senate is not required to immediately rule on every point of privilege raised during plenary sessions and that the Senate lawfully activated its internal disciplinary mechanisms in response to what it described as disorderly conduct.
In November 2025, the Court of Appeal struck out Akpabio’s brief of argument, describing it as “incurably defective” for breaching procedural requirements, including exceeding the 35-page limit and improper formatting. The appellate court also dismissed his application to file an extended brief, proceeded to hear the appeal, and awarded ₦100,000 in costs to Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The appellate court’s decision effectively upheld the lower court’s finding that the Senate’s six-month suspension of the senator was excessive and unconstitutional.
Akpoti-Uduaghan has consistently maintained that her suspension was unlawful, excessive and carried out in violation of her right to fair hearing. She argued that the Senate failed to comply with its own Standing Orders before referring her to the ethics committee and imposing disciplinary sanctions, thereby denying her a fair opportunity to defend herself.
It was confirmed on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal counsel was formally served with the Supreme Court processes, effectively joining issues and paving the way for a full legal contest at the apex court.
The case also involves a related contempt proceeding arising from a social media post made by the senator during the pendency of the suit. The Federal High Court had ruled that the post violated a subsisting restraining order, imposing a fine and ordering a public apology. Akpoti-Uduaghan has challenged that ruling on appeal, arguing that the alleged contempt was criminal in nature and required strict compliance with statutory procedures.
