Senate misreads Court judgement on recall of Natasha

● We’ll not recall her until she apologises as directed by Court – Senate Spokesperson

Spokesperson to the Senate, Yemi Adaramodu said that the Red Chamber would not, with immediate effect, reinstate the embattled Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial Area, until she apologised as directed by court.

Reacting to the Friday, July 4, 2025 judgement of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Senator Adaramodu said that the court judgement did not override the Senate’s constitutional powers to discipline its members.

He stated that Nstasha must apologise before she would be considered for recall.

Advertisement

However, sundry media reports said that Justice Binta Nyako ruled that Senate should recall Natasha to enable her apologise to the house on the floor.

THE CONCLAVE understands that the recall must precede Natasha’s apology since the apology must be issued on the floor of the Senate.

The other apology that the court directed Natasha to make in two national dailies was the one to purge herself of contempt ex facie curiae.

The judge had awarded a fine of N5 million against Natasha for her “satirical apology” message, which she posted on her Facebook page on April 27 in disobedience of the valid order of the court that parties should refrain from further ventilating their positions on the suit during its pendecy before the court.

Justice Nyako, therefore, ordered Natasha to tender an unreserved apology in two national dailies and on her Facebook page within seven days of the order before she could purge herself of the contemptuous act against the court.

But speaking with journalists in Abuja, Senate Spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu dismissed question as to whether the Senate would be appealing against the judgement of the High Court asking the Senate to recall Natasha to enable her apologise on the floor.

Meanwhile, it should be recalled that she committed the infraction against the standing rule of speaking from a seat not allocated to her on the floor of the Senate.

But Adaramodu said: “Which judgement are we appealing when they (the court) said the Senate has the right to discipline its erring members?

“The court has not ousted the Senate’s statutory right to punish any erring senator.

“It was established that the senator in question erred. The court has already told her to go and do some things, like restitution; so, after the restitution, the Senate will now sit again and consider the content of that restitution, and that will inform our next line of action.”

According to Senator Adaramodu, the Senate would only reconvene to deliberate on the matter after Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan had complied with the court’s directives.

“The onus is no more on us now; it is already at her doorstep to go and apologise. Once she does that, then the Senate will sit and determine how to deal with her matter.

“The first reaction now will not be from us. The court has ruled, so once she takes the step to redress and does what the court has directed her to do, then the Senate will sit and look at the content of her reaction as prescribed by the court.”

This is even as the Senate counsel, Paul Dauda, SAN, described the ruling as a partial victory for the Senate, particularly on the issue of civil contempt arising from social media posts made during the case.

Dauda said: “The first application filed by the Senate, that no social media posts should have been made, was decided in our favour. The court directed that the satirical apology be taken down and that a proper apology be published in two national dailies.

“Additionally, damages of five million naira were awarded to be paid to the court.”

On the substantive ruling regarding the suspension, Dauda noted that the Senate’s authority to discipline its members was not in dispute.

“It appears the court affirmed that the Senate, as an institution, has the right to discipline its members. While members are elected to represent constituencies, they are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the Senate’s standing rules.”

According to him, the court did not order Natasha’s reinstatement but merely suggested that the Senate could consider recalling her.

“There was no relief asking for the suspension to be lifted. The judge only made what we call ‘an obiter dictum,’ which is a non-binding remark, that the suspension may have been excessive.

“We will consult with our colleagues, read the full judgement, and respond accordingly.”