The Senate has denied allegations by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan that it violated a valid court judgment by stopping her from resuming legislative duties on Tuesday, insisting that no binding court order nullified her suspension.
Speaking in an interview with Channels TV on Tuesday evening, Senate spokesperson and Chairman of the Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, dismissed the senator’s attempted return as a “content creation episode,” insisting that the Senate has already addressed the matter internally.
“We are legislators, we are lawmakers, we are not spectators to be watching skit making and content creation. All this episode, all this saga, is all about content creation. And then the content has been created and is now maybe degenerating into a season film. We are not interested, we are not actors,”,” Adaramodu said.
The senator representing Kogi Central had arrived at the National Assembly complex earlier in the day but was denied entry by security operatives. She claimed her suspension had been declared excessive and unconstitutional by a Federal High Court judgment, and that the refusal to allow her resume duties was a breach of judicial authority.
But Adaramodu rejected that interpretation, maintaining that the judgment did not invalidate the Senate’s disciplinary powers under Section 60 of the Constitution.
“We have seen it. It was there in the judgment. Anybody who has it can show us where it is written, where it is pronounced that it is illegal, that it is unconstitutional, and that an order was made,” he said.
According to him, the only enforceable part of the court’s ruling was the directive that Senator Natasha should apologise, pay a ₦5 million fine, and retract a Facebook post.
“The only order that was made in that judgment was the order that our colleague Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan should apologise to the court and pay a five million naira fine. And she had appealed it.”
Adaramodu further clarified that the rest of the court’s observations, including the comment that the suspension may be “excessive,” were opinions and not binding orders.
“Opinion is not an order,” he said. “In my opinion it is not judicial. It is not the holding of the court.”
On claims that Senate President Godswill Akpabio Senate Denies Violating Court Order in Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Suspension Row the judgment in a personal capacity, the spokesperson responded saying, “There’s nothing subsisting between the Senate President and our colleague Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. It’s not about the Senate President, it’s about the Senate as a whole.”
He stressed that the rules invoked for the suspension were established by the Senate and not by any individual.
On the continued denial of access to the National Assembly, Adaramodu pointed to the nature of Natasha’s attempted return.
“If you are coming to the National Assembly with a multitude of a mob, a mob multitude… carrying placards, carrying flags, chanting war songs, there’s no way the National Assembly will allow you in,” he said.
“The only place where the senators [can access] strictly is the chamber, which is the hallowed chamber. And we never allow anything that smokes like illegality to enter the chamber.
“As far as the Senate is concerned… the suspension subsists because, and she should not be allowed entrance or access to the National Assembly.”
He added that only a definitive order by a competent court, clearly declaring the suspension illegal or unconstitutional, could compel the Senate to reverse its position.
“Until and when the court rules and gives a definitive order that ‘what you have done is unconstitutional,’ ‘is illegal’… those are the words of the court,” he said.
The Senate, he added, retains the right to reconsider its disciplinary action at any time but has not yet done so. Meanwhile, the Senate has commenced work on the ongoing constitutional amendment process.
Adaramodu confirmed that proposals such as the creation of new states, gender inclusion, and state police are being received and reviewed by the relevant committees.
He clarified that all such proposals would undergo public hearings and must meet constitutional thresholds, including endorsement by two-thirds of the 36 state assemblies, before any changes can be made.
