Legal practitioner Ekemini Udim has criticised Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s attempt to resume at the Senate, arguing that the recent court ruling did not explicitly lift her suspension.
Speaking on Channels Television’s The Morning Brief on Wednesday, Udim clarified that the Federal High Court’s judgement did not amount to a direct order for the Senate to recall the suspended Kogi Central senator.
“It is very clear: my Lord did not say, ‘Recall Senator Natasha.’ What the judge said was, ‘You cannot proceed in this manner,’ and then gave a recommendation to the Senate to consider amending its rules,” Udim explained.
“You cannot stretch that to mean the court ordered her recall. Anyone interpreting the judgement that way is not doing justice to its actual content,” he added.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, suspended in March for six months after accusing Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment and abuse of office, attempted to resume on Tuesday, citing the court’s ruling as her mandate. However, she was denied entry into the National Assembly despite being accompanied by numerous supporters.
Following the incident, the senator expressed her disappointment and stated she would consult her legal team for the appropriate response.
Udim supported that course of action but cautioned against interpreting the matter through emotion rather than law.
“Many people are approaching this issue emotionally, and that creates problems. It doesn’t help Senator Natasha. The matter must be viewed strictly from a legal standpoint,” he said.
The Senate, through its spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu, maintains that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan remains suspended. In an appearance on Politics Today on Tuesday, Adaramodu insisted there was no enforceable court order directing her reinstatement, and that she must stay away from the chambers until the suspension expires or is lifted.
While the Federal High Court had ruled on the matter earlier this month—leading many to believe it favoured the senator—the Senate insists the judgement was merely advisory and has appealed the ruling.
The controversy continues to spark public debate, with legal experts, rights activists, and political observers offering diverging interpretations of the court’s decision and the Senate’s authority to discipline its members.