A dramatic incident unfolded at the National Assembly complex in Abuja on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, after security operatives blocked Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan from accessing the Senate premises, despite a Federal High Court order.
The development unfolded after Senator Natasha, representing Kogi Central senatorial district of Kogi State at the Senate, arrived at the National Assembly around 12:20 p.m.
She was accompanied by prominent activist Aisha Yesufu, rights advocate Mama P, activist Randy, and a group of supporters.
However, security operatives, including personnel from the Nigeria Police Force, Department of State Services (DSS), and Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), stationed at the complex Gate, barred her convoy from entering.
After she was barred from entering the National Assembly complex, Natasha disembarked from her black Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and attempted to proceed on foot toward the Senate chambers.
It was also gathered that at the second gate, security operatives blocked Natasha, citing “orders from above.”
Speaking to journalists at the National Assembly gate, Natasha expressed her resolve to reclaim her seat.
She said: “It’s about me and a duly elected senator walking into the chambers to resume my constituted duties as I was elected and mandated by the good people of Kogi Central and INEC.
“It’s unfortunate that we got in today, which is the 22nd of July, 2025, having duly notified the Senate through two letters that I will be resuming functions today.
“I’m disappointed on two grounds. One is the number of armed policemen that we met outside, you know, all well-kitted with guns, who charged at a female senator who is unarmed.
“The second thing is the fact that the Senate, under the leadership of Akpabio, of course, has decided to become law breakers, and by denying the entrance into the chambers to resume my team,” Akpoti-Uduaghan asserted, directly challenging the integrity of the legislative body.
Addressing what she described as attempts to “twist a narrative” by the Senate’s team, Akpoti-Uduaghan clarified the legal implications of the court’s decision.
Citing Section 318 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, she explained that a court’s “decision” encompasses more than just an “order,” including judicial decrees, sentences, convictions, and recommendations.
She argued that even if the court’s pronouncement was termed a “recommendation,” it remained a binding judicial decision.
Further buttressing her point, she referenced Section 287, Subsection 3 of the 1999 Constitution, which explicitly states that “decisions… of any court” are binding on “every authority.”
