The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has threatened to sue Senate President Godswill Akpabio if the Senate does not immediately rescind what it describes as “the patently unlawful suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan” by lawmakers.
SERAP disclosed this in a statement on Sunday, alleging that the suspension is based solely on the peaceful exercise of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s constitutionally and internationally recognized right to freedom of expression.
Nairametrics previously reported that the Nigerian Senate, on Thursday, suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, effective March 6, 2025, following allegations of violating Senate rules.
The suspension was based on the recommendations of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions.
Senate President Godswill Akpabio, while reading the committee’s recommendations, stated:
“That the Senate do suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months for her total violation of the Senate Standing Rules (2023 as amended) for bringing the presiding officer and the entire Nigerian Senate to public opprobrium.”
Despite attempts by some senators to reduce the suspension period to three months, the Senate, through a majority vote, upheld the initial six-month decision.
The penalties associated with the suspension include freezing of her salary and allowances, as well as the withdrawal of her security details.
SERAP Reacts
In its statement, SERAP called for the immediate reinstatement of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and a revision of parliamentary procedures that unduly restrict senators’ human rights.
In an open letter dated March 8, 2025, and signed by SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare, the organization stated: “No one should ever be punished for ‘speaking without permission.’ Being a senator does not deprive Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan of her fundamental human rights.”
- Oluwadare stressed that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension appears to be based solely on the peaceful exercise of her right to freedom of expression in the Senate, adding that all the other grounds cited for her suspension seem to be a pretext to further restrict her fundamental human rights.
“We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken within 48 hours of the receipt and/or publication of this letter. If we have not heard from you by then, SERAP shall consider appropriate legal action to compel you and the Senate to comply with our requests in the public interest,” the letter partly reads.
- The advocacy group further highlighted that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension has restricted and seriously undermined the ability of the residents of Kogi Central Senatorial District to effectively participate in their own government.
Backstory
The altercation between Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Akpabio became widely publicized when she was asked to change her seat during plenary.
- On February 28, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan accused Akpabio of making inappropriate advances towards her during a visit to his home in December 2023.
- She detailed the events leading up to the incident, explaining that she was in Akwa Ibom with her husband and close associates to attend Akpabio’s birthday celebration, which coincided with hers.
- According to her, the visit began at Akpabio’s home in Ikot Ekpene, after which they moved to his residence in Uyo around 8 PM. It was during this visit that she alleged the Senate President made inappropriate remarks and gestures towards her.
- Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had earlier filed a defamation lawsuit against Akpabio over these allegations.
Her Senate seat was reassigned following a reshuffle triggered by opposition members switching to the majority wing. She resisted the relocation, leading to a confrontation with Akpabio.
The suspension of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has sparked mixed reactions within the political landscape.
While some lawmakers and political analysts view the decision as a necessary enforcement of legislative discipline, others argue that the penalties are excessive and could set a dangerous precedent for stifling dissent within the chamber.
