Senate President Godswill Akpabio has dismissed as false and misleading the claims by suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan that she has a court-backed mandate to resume her duties.
Recall that Natasha stormed the National Assembly on July 22, 2025, over claims that the court had ordered her recall, but she was denied access to the Senate chambers, along with her supporters.
Speaking through his media strategist and consultant, Kenny Okolugbo, in an interview with Vanguard, Akpabio said Natasha’s actions were premeditated and calculated for media optics.
He stated that Natasha did not notify the Senate leadership or the Clerk of the National Assembly regarding her planned return.
According to Okolugbo, there was no express order for Natasha’s recall or reinstatement.
He said, “There was absolutely no formal notification sent to the Senate leadership or the Clerk of the National Assembly regarding her planned return. As clearly stated by Senator Yemi Adaramodu, who serves as the Senate Spokesman, the judgment of Honourable Justice Binta Nyako did not mandate the Senate to take any specific action on the matter of her suspension. There was no express order for her recall or reinstatement.
“Her lawyer, Juan Numa, SAN, wrote a letter to the Senate, and it was duly acknowledged and replied by the Clerk of the National Assembly. That alone should have settled the matter. But instead, Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan chose to escalate the issue through media dramatics, pretending she had a court-backed mandate to resume. That was false and misleading.
“What we saw on the 22nd of July 2025 was a deliberate act of provocation. Senator Natasha arrived at the gates of the National Assembly flanked by street urchins and political hangers-on. This was not a legislative act — it was pure political theatre. Her aim was to incite public sympathy and paint the Senate in a bad light, all based on a false premise.
Now, here’s where it gets even more disturbing. Ground 23 of her appeal in Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan vs Clerk of the National Assembly & Ors makes it explicitly clear that the judgment she claims gave her right of return did not grant her such relief. Let me quote it directly:
“The learned trial judge erred in law and abdicated her judicial duty when Her Ladyship, after rightly adjudging the Appellant’s suspension by the 2nd Respondent for a period of six months as excessive, outside the contemplation of the Constitution and the enabling Act, as well as ultra vires Section 63 of the Constitution, failed to expressly make a clear pronouncement SET ASIDE and/or NULLIFY same accordingly.”
