Headlines
Why I Shelved My Proposed Tuesday’s Return to the Senate – Sen Natasha
The suspended lawmaker representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, reneged on her promise to resume legislative duty on Tuesday, following Friday’s judgment, which nullified her six-month sanction.
The senator also failed to tender a public apology in two major dailies and her social media account, in line with the court order.
Akpoti-Uduaghan had told her jubilant supporters in a video trending on social media that she would resume her legislative activities in the Red Chamber on Tuesday.
The senator also expressed gratitude to her constituents for standing by her, following the favourable court judgment that reaffirmed her position in the Senate.
Following her threat to attend Tuesday’s plenary, the Senate leadership stated that it would not take any official action on the matter until the review of the Certified True Copy of the court’s pronouncement.
While bracing for a possible showdown, security at the National Assembly was beefed up with traffic extending to the intersection at the Federal Secretariat in Abuja.
Although authorities insisted that the heavy retinue of operatives had nothing to do with the suspended senator, incoming vehicles were thoroughly searched with the passengers asked to explain their mission.
When it was obvious she would not turn up as promised, many speculated that the lawmaker must have been warned by the Senate to stay away.
They hinged their suspicion on a viral letter purportedly written by the legal counsel of the upper chamber.
The letter, dated July 5, 2025, claimed that Friday’s judgment by the Federal High Court did not translate to a binding order invalidating her suspension.
The correspondence purportedly advised Jubrin Okutepa to caution his client (Natasha) from returning to the Senate chamber pending the release of the enrolled order from the court.
The letter allegedly bearing Paul Daudu’s name and signature warned of potential unrest in the Senate chamber if Natasha attempted to return to the Senate without an official court order.
Daudu, the counsel for the Senate in the suit filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan, challenging her suspension debunked the claim.
He denied writing the rumoured letter to the counsel for the Kogi senator, warning her not to resume legislative duties in the Senate.
Meanwhile, in an interview with the African Independent Television on Tuesday, the lawmaker explained that her decision was guided by legal counsel and a deep respect for institutional procedures.
She stated that she would await the Certified True Copy of the court judgment before making any definitive move regarding her return to plenary sessions.
While the court described the suspension as “excessive and unconstitutional,” a counter-opinion dated July 5, reportedly authored by Senate legal counsel, Paul Daudu, SAN, claimed that the ruling lacked any enforceable directive compelling the Senate to reinstate her.
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
