“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” — Frederick Douglass
On July 4, 2025, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered a landmark ruling: the Nigerian Senate’s six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was unlawful and undemocratic. The court demanded her immediate reinstatement—stripping the Senate of its authority to silence a voice and disenfranchise over 300,000 Kogi Central constituents.
This ruling arrives amidst a broader storm of allegations and constitutional doctrine —touching upon judicial supremacy, gendered power, and democratic legitimacy. As the Senate now stands at a fork in the road, the central question emerges: will Senate President Godswill Akpabio respect the court’s mandate, or will he challenge judicial authority and deepen Nigeria’s constitutional crises?
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s ordeal began on February 20, 2025. During the Senate’s plenary, she discovered her seat—critical for speaking rights—had been reassigned. When she protested, the Senate President denied her the floor, citing Senate rules. She countered with more: on Arise TV, she publicly accused Akpabio of sexual harassment dating back to December 2023. Though dismissed on a technicality, her petition reignited tensions. Instead of addressing her grievances, the Senate took disciplinary action—suspending her for speaking out of turn and refusing to accept her new seat. The six-month suspension drew extensive criticism for being politically motivated and excessive.
Legal heavyweights soon weighed in. Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) condemned the suspension as unconstitutional, referencing past rulings on Ali Ndume in 2017 and Ovie Omo-Agege in 2020 as precedents invalidating legislative suspensions exceeding 14 days. Legal experts echoed the sentiment: Senate Standing Order 67(4) limits suspensions to 14 days, making the six-month term a clear breach. These arguments center on constitutional supremacy and Article 4(8), which forbids laws inconsistent with the constitution.
Justice Nyako’s ruling aligned with this legal reasoning, declaring both the Senate Rules and relevant clauses of the Legislative Houses, Powers & Privileges Act excessive. She emphasized that suspending a representative for 180 days—nearly the entire six-month cycle—effectively silenced Kogi Central’s voice.
Justice Nyako struck a delicate balance: while condemning the duration of the suspension, she did not dispute the Senate’s right to manage its affairs. The court affirmed that Akpabio was correct to withhold floor privileges because Akpoti-Uduaghan was not in her assigned seat. However, it declared the six-month duration excessive and undemocratic.
The court directed Akpabio to reconsider the punishment, immediately recall Akpoti-Uduaghan, and allow her return to the Senate—conditioned on an apology for not remaining in her assigned seat and for contempt.
On the contempt charge, Justice Nyako found that Akpoti-Uduaghan had violated an April 4 court order by posting a satirical Facebook letter on April 27, leading to a ₦5 million fine, a public apology in two national newspapers, and publication of the same apology on her Facebook page. She must comply within seven days.
At its core, this case challenges Nigeria’s separation of powers. If Akpabio refuses court orders, Nigeria runs the risk of recurring institutional conflict, undermining public trust in democratic governance.
The suspension of a duly elected senator for such a long period defies democratic expectations. Justice Nyako underscored that depriving constituents of representation violates their political rights. The judgment reaffirmed that the electorate, not parliamentary leadership, is the ultimate arbiter of a representative’s legitimacy.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case also spotlights systemic sexism. Her allegations were largely sidelined in favour of procedural enforcement. Critics argue this is reflective of a broader patriarchal structure where women in politics are disproportionately targeted when they challenge established authority.
The Senate Ethics Committee, led by a senator loyal to Akpabio, also came under scrutiny for procedural bias. Critics labeled the hearing less about ethics and more about political retaliation, reinforcing perceptions of legislative impunity.
Now, the Senate must choose between two divergent paths.
Option one is compliance. This involves reinstating Akpoti-Uduaghan, restoring her seat and privileges, and demonstrating respect for judicial oversight. This would not only defuse public anger but also reestablish confidence in the Senate’s democratic values.
Option two is defiance. The Senate could appeal the decision or claim that the judiciary overstepped its bounds. However, such a move would risk further court actions, deepen institutional conflicts, and erode public faith in constitutional rule.
Civil society organizations are watching closely. Already, lawsuits challenging the suspension have been filed in different courts, and several advocacy groups have signaled readiness to escalate the matter, should Akpabio refuse to act.
Immediate compliance with the ruling would signal respect for the rule of law. It would reassert the independence of the judiciary and reinforce the boundaries of legislative power. Moreover, it would help restore public faith in a political system often viewed with suspicion and cynicism.
Defiance, on the other hand, may prompt contempt proceedings, compensation claims, and even legislative crisis. If courts are ignored, it sets a dangerous precedent—one where judicial rulings become optional and democratic accountability collapses under institutional egos.
For Akpabio and the ruling APC, compliance may frustrate hardliners but protect institutional integrity. Defiance could embolden political loyalists but risk a backlash from the electorate, civil society, and the international community.
For the opposition, particularly the PDP, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s reinstatement would be symbolic. It would underscore resistance to legislative overreach and invigorate their narrative on defending constitutional order.
For women in politics, this could become a pivotal moment. A favorable resolution may catalyze gender reforms in parliamentary processes and reduce systemic obstacles faced by women in public life.
This is not the first time Nigeria has witnessed tensions between the judiciary and legislature. The 2017 reinstatement of Senator Ali Ndume and the 2020 victory of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege after their unconstitutional suspensions stand as precedents.
In both cases, the courts ruled that legislative houses do not possess the authority to suspend elected representatives beyond the bounds of constitutional and procedural fairness. These decisions have contributed to a body of jurisprudence affirming the limits of parliamentary immunity.
Justice Nyako’s judgment draws directly from these precedents, reiterating that while legislative bodies may maintain order, their actions must not violate fundamental democratic principles.
Short-term, the Senate must act swiftly. Akpoti-Uduaghan must be reinstated, and she must fulfill the terms of the contempt ruling. Civil society groups remain vigilant, and further protests are likely if the matter is stalled or politicized.
Long-term, the outcome of this case may influence reforms in legislative conduct, judicial accountability, and gender inclusion. It may also provoke constitutional amendments to clarify the limits of legislative disciplinary powers and the scope of judicial review.
Justice Nyako’s decision is more than procedural—it is emblematic of Nigeria’s democratic resilience. Reinstating Akpoti-Uduaghan would affirm the supremacy of the judiciary, uphold the rights of Kogi Central constituents, and send a clear message that elected officials cannot be punished arbitrarily.
But if Senate President Akpabio defies the ruling, it would signal a troubling erosion of institutional checks and balances. It could set Nigeria down a path where political loyalty overrides constitutional fidelity and where the rule of law becomes a casualty of expediency.
As Frederick Douglass reminded us, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” Here, the courts, civil society, and the public have made that demand. Now it is up to the Senate—and its President—to choose between democratic integrity and institutional defiance.
The reinstatement of one senator may seem minor in the grand scheme. But in moments like this, history is made. Will Nigeria’s democracy rise to the occasion?
Discussion about this post