A tense scene unfolded at the National Assembly gates on Tuesday as suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan attempted to resume legislative duties but was blocked by security operatives enforcing a Senate resolution that continues to bar her from plenary.
Arriving just after midday, the embattled Kogi Central lawmaker entered the complex flanked by her supporters and prominent activist Aisha Yesufu. Her goal: to challenge what she called an “illegal suspension” and reclaim her Senate seat.
But her advance was halted by a wall of resistance.
Personnel from the Nigeria Police, Department of State Services (DSS), Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), and the National Assembly’s Sergeant-at-Arms formed a perimeter at the main entrance, refusing her access. The standoff also caused traffic disruptions, with vehicles subjected to strict checks.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s return attempt followed her interpretation of a Federal High Court judgment by Justice Binta Nyako, which she claims invalidated her six-month suspension imposed in March for alleged gross misconduct. Citing Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution, the court ruled that no legislator may be suspended for more than one-third of a legislative year.
Despite formally notifying the Senate of her intent to resume, she was blocked at the gate. Speaking to reporters, she decried the heavy security presence.
“I am unarmed, surrounded by law-abiding citizens, and yet they meet me with rifles and barricades,” she said. “Why is Akpabio so afraid of my presence in the Senate?”
Legal experts argue the court’s ruling is binding. Under Section 287(3) of the Constitution, all persons and authorities—including the Senate—are obligated to comply.
However, the Senate insists there is no existing order compelling her recall. Akpoti-Uduaghan countered that only Senate President Godswill Akpabio, in his personal capacity, appealed the judgment.
“The Senate didn’t appeal. The Clerk didn’t appeal. The Committee that suspended me didn’t appeal. Only Akpabio did—and now he cites that appeal as justification for Senate disobedience,” she said.
She linked her suspension to a petition she submitted a day earlier, alleging sexual harassment within the Senate.
“Since then, it’s been blackmail, criminal charges, and a fraudulent recall. This isn’t discipline—it’s retaliation.”
Akpoti-Uduaghan contrasted her situation with that of colleagues facing EFCC probes who remain untouched.
“I’m not under investigation. I haven’t stolen a dime. My only offence is refusing to be silent.”
Backed by Aisha Yesufu, who challenged security officials at the gate, Akpoti-Uduaghan said the Senate’s silence on her ordeal proves dissent is no longer tolerated.
“The 10th Senate has become a rubber stamp. Debate is stifled. Dissent is punished. Akpabio runs it like a fiefdom.”
Despite being blocked, she vowed to press on—through the courts and public advocacy.
“This is bigger than me. It’s about our democracy. If my courage today helps one young woman stand up tomorrow, I’ve already won.”
To her constituents, she sent a message of resolve:
“You elected me—not Akpabio. I will keep fighting for you. I will return.”
She also referenced constitutional provisions supporting her position:
Section 63: Suspension cannot exceed one-third of a legislative session.
Section 287(3): Court orders must be obeyed by all persons and authorities.
Section 318: Judicial recommendations are binding and enforceable.
Senate Spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu dismissed her claims, saying:
“This clarification becomes necessary, given circulating claims by the suspended senator. Her intent to resume is based on a misinterpretation of the recent ruling by Justice Binta Nyako.”
Tuesday’s face-off marks the third time the Senate has restated its position—underscoring a growing institutional standoff between the legislature and the judiciary.
This latest flashpoint comes weeks after Akpoti-Uduaghan was fined ₦5 million for contempt of court and removed from the Senate Committee on Diaspora and NGOs—actions she deems politically motivated.
As she heads to the Court of Appeal and vows not to be silenced, Tuesday’s drama at the gate may be just the beginning of a larger constitutional showdown.