Eye Reporters Editorial: As Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan battles legal delay and absence from the red chambers, Eye Reporters examines the constitutional powers of the Senate to declare her seat vacant, the authority of a court order to recall her, and the looming danger of legislative inertia.
The unfolding case of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is no longer just a legal battle; it is a constitutional stress test. With her absence from Senate plenary sessions nearing the threshold set by Section 68(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution, and a court order now mandating her recall, the tension between legislative discretion and judicial authority is on full display.
The relevant constitutional clause provides that a legislator “shall vacate his seat… if, without just cause, he is absent from sittings for more than one-third of the days the House meets in a year.” That comes to approximately 60–65 sitting days, not 180 calendar days, a detail often misquoted.
But the constitutional test is twofold: (1) has the senator missed the required number of sittings? and (2) was her absence without just cause?
In Senator Natasha’s case, there is a strong argument that her absence is not only justified but enforced, by virtue of her entanglement in prolonged post-election litigation and the Senate’s own failure to comply with the court order confirming her mandate. Her legal team maintains that the court-validated victory supersedes any claim of absenteeism. And rightly so: one cannot be absent from a place they have been procedurally barred from entering.
However, the Senate appears to be stalling. Its Legal Department, in a letter to Natasha’s lawyers, said it is “studying the judgment.” That position, on the surface, reflects due diligence. But in practice, it may amount to institutional delay, especially if the review extends just long enough to cross the constitutional absenteeism threshold. This raises the question: Can the Senate use the cloak of legal review to delay Natasha’s resumption, then invoke that delay as grounds to declare her seat vacant?
Technically, yes, the Senate retains the power to interpret what constitutes a “just cause” and to initiate a process to declare a seat vacant. But such a move, in defiance of a binding court order, would be constitutionally risky, politically volatile, and morally questionable.
To ignore a court’s ruling would not only violate the doctrine of separation of powers, but would also risk setting off a constitutional crisis. If the legislative arm can sidestep a judicial order, especially one affirming the rights of an elected official, it undermines the judiciary, invites retaliatory litigation, and weakens public trust in governance.
On the other hand, if the Senate feels the court encroached on its internal procedures, its legal recourse is not passive resistance, but an appeal or stay of execution, not strategic delay or silence.
Eye Reporters believes this controversy places both institutions, the judiciary and the legislature, at a delicate crossroads. While the Senate has constitutional authority to monitor attendance and enforce discipline, it must not weaponize that power against a lawmaker whose absence was arguably not voluntary, but the product of legal and institutional process.
This is not to say that legislators are above accountability. Far from it. But accountability must be rooted in fairness, context, and legality, not expediency. If Senator Natasha failed to communicate her absence or request leave, that is a procedural flaw. But if she was waiting for judicial confirmation to resume, and has now been cleared, then the Senate must act swiftly and responsibly.
To declare her seat vacant now, while simultaneously refusing to obey a court order recalling her, would not just be a contradiction; it would be a constitutional paradox. It would send a dangerous signal: that legal victory can be nullified by procedural sabotage.
Eye Reporters is of the view that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case should not be resolved in a haze of silence or power play. It should be resolved by clarity, of law, of procedure, and of institutional respect. If she has overstayed the constitutional limit, the Senate must show that her absence was indeed without just cause. But if it is the Senate’s inaction that kept her away, then it cannot sit as both the judge and the jailer.
The Senate has the power. The court has spoken. The nation is watching.
© Eye Reporters Media Ltd 2025. All Rights Reserved. For submission and inquiry, contact: eyereportersmedia@gmail.com, editor@eyereporters.com, or 08052898434.
