There was drama at the National Assembly on Tuesday as Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, was denied access to the Senate chambers, a development that has again gained a fresh constitutional standoff.
The embattled senator, whose six-month suspension was recently nullified by a Federal High Court, arrived at the Assembly complex to resume her legislative duties following the July 4, 2025, ruling that declared her suspension unconstitutional and excessive.
Despite notifying the Senate in advance through two separate letters indicating her intention to resume on Tuesday, July 22, Akpoti-Uduaghan was stopped at the entrance by a heavy presence of security personnel.
“It’s about me and a duly elected senator walking into the chambers to resume my constituted duties as I was elected and mandated by the good people of Kogi Central and INEC,” she said to journalists at the gate while emphasizing her electoral legitimacy.
The senator did not hold back in her criticism of the Senate leadership, accusing them of defying a judicial order.
“As a matter of fact, I’m disappointed on two grounds. One is the number of armed policemen that we met outside, you know, all well kitted with guns, charged at a female senator who is unarmed.
“The second thing is the fact that the Senate, under the leadership of Akpabio, of course, have decided to become law breakers, and by denying the entrance into the chambers to resume my team,” she declared.
Read also: Drama as security bars suspended senator Natasha from national assembly
Natasha further described the actions as an attempt by the Senate’s legal team to twist a narrative around the court’s decision.
Referencing Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution, she argued that a court’s “decision” includes more than just an “order,” encompassing judicial decrees, sentences, convictions, and recommendations. Even if the judgment were termed a recommendation, Akpoti-Uduaghan insisted, it remains a binding legal directive.
The embattled senator further cited Section 287, Subsection 3 of the same Constitution, which states that decision of any court are binding on every authority.
Akpoti-Uduaghan also disclosed that although an appeal had been filed against the ruling, it was not done by the National Assembly as a body.
Displaying a copy of the appeal documents, she clarified, “It is clear that it is not the National Assembly, nor is it the Senate. It’s [Senator Akpabio] himself… The National Assembly has not appealed that judgment. The Senate has not appealed the judgment.”
She revealed that Senate President Akpabio, in the appeal, had joined the National Assembly, the Senate, and the Ethics Committee as respondents—an action that suggests another legal tussle within the legislative leadership.
