Tag: Natasha

The Senate yesterday said there is currently no “legal basis upon which” suspended Kogi Central Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan can resume duties at the National Assembly.

The Senate, through its spokesperson, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, reacted to purported moves by Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume plenary tomorrow allegedly based on the ‘orders’ of the Federal High Court.

She had earlier announced plans to resume plenary last Tuesday but shelved it.

But in a letter, purportedly addressed to the leadership of the Senate by her lawyers, Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was suspended in March for alleged gross misconduct, said she would resume legislative duties tomorrow, purportedly based on the ruling of the Federal High Court.

There has been a controversy over a recent ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja on whether the court gave an opinion or an express order on her recall or concerning the legality or otherwise of her suspension by the Senate.

While some claimed that the court quashed her suspension by the Senate and, therefore, she can resume plenary, others said the court merely gave advice to the Senate to reconsider the suspension, which has denied her constituents statutory representation.

But in a statement yesterday in Abuja on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s plan to resume legislative tomorrow, Adaramodu said: “The attention of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has been drawn to a letter, dated July 11, 2025 authored by the law firm of Numa (SAN) & Co. on behalf of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, addressed to the leadership of the National Assembly.

“The said letter hinges its request on Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and purports that the judgment of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako delivered on July 4, 2025, constitutes a binding order directing the immediate recall of the suspended Senator to the Senate chamber on Tuesday, July 15, 2025.

Read Also: Buhari sacrificed his life for Nigeria’s unity, says Sanwo-Olu

“The Senate wishes to state categorically and for the avoidance of doubt that the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Enrolled Order did not contain any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.

“The learned judge, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, merely made advisory observations on the length of the suspension, which are not enforceable or binding in law. The enrolled order clearly demonstrates that the Senate’s disciplinary powers under Section 60 of the Constitution remain intact and were not invalidated.

“Nowhere in the judgment did the Court issue a declaratory or injunctive order mandating her recall.

“However, the Senate will consider and deliberate on this judgment and consequently take a constitutionally informed position on the matter and convey the outcome to the affected Senator and the public.“The Senate remains committed to the principles of constitutional democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

“Subsequently, it will not allow its processes or integrity to be undermined by premature interpretations of ongoing legal proceedings or by misapplications of constitutional provisions.

“In conclusion, there is no legal basis upon which Senator Natasha can resume legislative duties at this time.”

Besides, investigation by The Nation revealed that apart from the controversy surrounding the court ruling, Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot lawfully return to the Senate during the pendency of her suspension.”

A source close to the leadership of the Senate noted by appealing the ruling of the court, the Senate, in line with its rules, does not consider any matters pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Order 52(5) of the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended) states: “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as might in the opinion of the President of the Senate prejudice the interest of the parties thereto.”

Akpoti-Uduaghan had filed a formal notice of appeal against the N5 million court fine imposed on her for contempt by Justice Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on July 4, 2025.

In her first ground of appeal, Akpoti-Uduaghan contended that the judge erred in law when the court assumed jurisdiction and entertained the third respondent’s motion, dated May 7, 2025, agitating an alleged contempt committed ex facie curiae (on her facebook page) against her own orders made on April 4, 2025 and summarily found the appellant liable for a punitive fine of N5 million only and public apology on two national dallies and on her facebook page.

She said: “The alleged contempt the Appellant was accused of was committed ex facie curiae, specifically through her Facebook account.

“The law is settled that contempt committed ex facie curiae involves imposition of a sanction such as a fine, is criminal in nature and must involve punishment of a person for a criminal act in relation to the judicial proceedings perpetrated outside the face of the court.

“The appellant’s satirical apology was unrelated to the judicial proceedings before the trial court.

“The proper procedure for contempt committed ex facie curiae is to proceed against the alleged contemnor by the regular procedure of the criminal trial before another judge to ensure that, before the contemnor is punished, the charges preferred against him are established beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The trial court judge lacks the vires and indeed the jurisdiction to entertain an alleged contempt of its order committed ex facie curiae.

“The learned trial judge failed to be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in OMOJAHE v UMORU (1999) 8 NWLR Pt. 614 Pg 178 at 192-193, which failure occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”

On ground two, she said the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and breached the appellant’s right to a fair hearing when she adopted a wrong procedure in adjudging the Appellant liable in contempt of any enforceable order of court by committal without compliance with the relevant statutory requirements prescribed under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

She added: “Contempt proceedings ex facie curiae, whether civil or criminal, are regulated by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

“The alleged contempt of which the appellant is accused occurred outside the court, specifically via social media.

“The alleged contempt, not being coram judice (before the judge), could not properly be tried summarily, as was done by the trial court in this instance.

“The third respondent’s application was not preceded by the issuance of the prescribed Forms 48 and 49, which would have afforded the appellant the opportunity to purge herself of the alleged contempt, particularly where the scope of the Order as interpreted by the court exceeded the appellant’s understanding.

“The third respondent’s application ought to have been preceded by the issuance of the prescribed forms 48 and 49 in accordance with Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act and Order IX (13) of the Judgment enforcement rules.

“The opportunity of the appellant to purge herself of contempt is a right to a fair hearing is rooted in the issuance and service of Forms 48 as prescribed by Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

“The appellant’s right to a fair hearing was violated by the procedure adopted by the learned trial judge, which thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

“In the circumstances, the entire decision of the trial court adjudging the appellant in contempt summarily, on mere affidavit evidence and without compliance with the statutory procedure, is a nullity.”

On ground three, she said that the trial judge erred in law when she adjudged the appellant’s satirical apology, dated April 27, 2025, addressed to the third respondent and relating squarely to allegations of sexual harassment, as contemptuous and amounting to disobedience of the Order of the Court made on the 4th day of April, 2025, which specifically restrained comments relating to the subject matter of the suit.

She said: “The appellant’s satirical apology, dated April 27, 2025, and addressed to the third respondent, was manifestly in respect of allegations of sexual harassment, which were unconnected to the subject matter of the substantive dispute.

“The question for determination and the reliefs sought in the appellant’s originating summons, when construed holistically, relate squarely to the propriety or otherwise of the referral of the appellant to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, as being ultra vires her constitutional right to fair hearing and the rules of the Senate, leading to her suspension during the pendency of suit.

“The sexual harassment allegation was not before the Trial Court. The liability as adjudged by the Learned Trial Judge against the Appellant with respect to a subject matter unrelated to the judicial proceedings before her ladyship was erroneous and, indeed, perverse.”

Further on ground four for the appeal, Akpoti-Uduaghan said that the trial judge erred in law when she directed the Appellant to tender an apology to the Court in two national dailies and on her Facebook page, and to pay the sum of N5million only as a fine to the Court.

She said: “The Appellant was not liable for contempt, as the satirical apology was unconnected to the subject matter of the suit.

“The purpose of the Order was to restrain the parties and Counsel alike from discussing the substantive matter of the suit before the media, including social media.

“Neither the appellant nor her counsel had discussed the subject matter of the suit before the trial court on the press as directed by the trial judge.

“The learned trial judge misapprehended the Appellant’s satirical apology, which led to her ladyship’s expansion of the scope of her orders, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”

On ground five, Akpoti-Uduaghan said the Judge erred in law, she substituted the reliefs sought by the 3rd Respondent vide its application filed on the 7th day of May, 2025, for contempt with her order, imposing a punitive cost of N5 million only against the Appellant, which occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

She said: “The 3rd Respondent’s application for contempt sought inter alia for an order to delete the said satirical apology and an apology to the Judiciary and the 3rd Respondent simpliciter.

“The third respondent’s application filed on May 7, 2025 did not expressly seek the payment of a fine of N5 million only or any amount whatsoever.

“The Learned Trial Judge expressly in her decision, substituted the 3rd Respondent’s reliefs sought with her own order.

“The law is settled that the Court and indeed the parties are bound by the reliefs sought on the face of the application under reference.

“The imposition of fine by a Trial Court judge is in the realm of criminal sanctions.

“The Learned Trial Judge can only award cost to the successful party in  as indemnity in a civil proceedings and not to impose criminal sanction in the form of fines payable to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

“The decision of the Learned Trial Judge to substitute 3rd Respondent’s reliefs sought with her own orders extraneous to the motion paper for amounts to descending into the arena of conflict which occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”

On her ground six for the appeal, Akpoti-Uduaghan said the award of N5million only against the Appellant is excessive and punitive.

She said: “The offence the Appellant was alleged to have committed is a minor offence that borders on misunderstanding of the scope of the Court ordersmade on the 4th day of April, 2025.

“The Appellant in her counter affidavit expressly denied any attempt or intention to flout or disobey the orders of the Court.

“The Learned Trial Judge’s decision in awarding the sum of N5million only in light of the facts and circumstances of the case was excessive and indeed punitive.”

The Senate on Sunday said there is presently no “legal basis upon which” suspended Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan can resume duties at this time.

The Senate, through its spokesperson, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, reacted to purported moves by Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume plenary on Tuesday, allegedly based on the ‘orders’ of the Federal High Court.

She had earlier announced plans to resume plenary last week Tuesday, but never showed up.

However, in a letter, purportedly addressed to the leadership of the Senate by her lawyers, Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was suspended by the Senate in March over alleged misconduct, said she would resume legislative duties on Tuesday, allegedly based on the ruling of the Federal High Court.

There has been controversy over a recent ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja on whether the court gave an opinion or an express order on her recall or concerning the legality or otherwise of her suspension by the Senate.

While some claim that the court quashed her suspension by the Senate and therefore she can resume plenary, others said the court merely gave advice to the Senate to reconsider the suspension, which has denied her constituents statutory representation.

However, in a statement on Sunday in reaction to the planned resumption by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senator Adaramodu said that the Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order of the ruling “did not contain any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.”

Adaramodu said: “The attention of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has been drawn to a letter dated 11th July 2025 authored by the law firm of Numa S.A.N. & Co. on behalf of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, addressed to the leadership of the National Assembly.

“The said letter hinges its request on Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and purports that the judgment of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako delivered on 4th July 2025 constitutes a binding order directing the immediate recall of the suspended Senator to the Senate chamber on Tuesday, 15th July 2025.

“The Senate wishes to state categorically and for the avoidance of doubt that the Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order did not contain any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.

“The learned judge, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, merely made advisory observations on the length of the suspension, which are not enforceable or binding in law. The enrolled order clearly demonstrates that the Senate’s disciplinary powers under Section 60 of the Constitution remain intact and were not invalidated.

“Nowhere in the judgment did the Court issue a declaratory or injunctive order mandating her recall.

“However, the Senate will consider and deliberate on this judgment and consequently take a constitutionally informed position on the matter and convey the outcome to the affected Senator and the public.

“The Senate remains committed to the principles of constitutional democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

“Subsequently, it will not allow its processes or integrity to be undermined by premature interpretations of ongoing legal proceedings or by misapplications of constitutional provisions.

 “In conclusion, there is no legal basis upon which Senator Natasha can resume legislative duties at this time.”

Besides, an investigation by The Nation revealed that apart from the controversy surrounding the court ruling, Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot lawfully return to the Senate during the pendency of her suspension.

A source close to the leadership of the Senate said that by appealing the ruling of the Court, the Senate, in line with its rules, does not consider any matters pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Order 52(5) of the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended) states that: “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending, in such a way as might in the opinion of the President of the Senate prejudice the interest of the parties thereto.”

Akpoti-Uduaghan had filed a formal notice of appeal against the N5 million court fine for contempt by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on July 4, 2025.

In her first ground of appeal, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan contended that the judge erred in law when the court assumed jurisdiction and entertained the 3rd Respondent’s motion dated the 7th May, 2025 agitating an alleged contempt committed ex facie curiae (on her Facebook page) against her own orders made on the 4th day of April, 2025 and summarily found the Appellant liable for a punitive fine of N5million only and public apology on two national dallies along and on her Facebook page.

She said, “The alleged contempt the Appellant was accused of was committed ex facie curiae specifically through her Facebook account.

“The law is settled that contempt committed ex facie curiae involves imposition of sanction such as a fine, is criminal in nature and must involve punishment of a person for a criminal act in relation to the judicial proceedings perpetrated outside the face of the court.

Read Also: Presidency applauds DBI leadership for advancing digital skills, youth empowerment

“The Appellant’s satirical apology was unrelated to the judicial proceedings before the Trial Court.

“The proper procedure for contempt committed ex facie curiae is to proceed against the alleged contemnor by the regular procedure of the criminal trial before another judge to ensure that before the contemnor is punished, the charges preferred against him is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The Trial Court judge lacks the vires and indeed the jurisdiction to entertain an alleged contempt of its own order committed ex facie curiae.

“The learned trial judge failed to be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in OMOJAHE v UMORU (1999) 8 NWLR Pt. 614 Pg 178 at 192-193 which failure occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”

On ground two, she said the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and breached the Appellant’s right to fair hearing when she adopted a wrong procedure in adjudging the Appellant liable in contempt of any enforceable order of court by committal without compliance with the relevant statutory requirements prescribed under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

She explained that “Contempt proceedings ex facie curiae, whether civil or criminal, are regulated by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

“The alleged contempt of which the Appellant is accused occurred outside the Court, specifically via social media.

“The alleged contempt, not being coram judice (before the judge), could not properly be tried summarily, as was done by the Trial Court in this instance.

“The 3rd Respondent’s application was not preceded by the issuance of the prescribed Forms 48 and 49, which would have afforded the Appellant the opportunity to purge herself of the alleged contempt, particularly where the scope of the Order as interpreted by the Court, exceeded the Appellant’s understanding.

“The 3rd Respondent’s application ought to have been preceded by the issuance of the prescribed form 48 and 49 in accordance with Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act and Order IX (13) of the Judgment enforcement rules.

“The opportunity of the Appellant to purge herself of contempt for the right to fair hearing is rooted in the issuance and service of Forms 48 as prescribed by Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

“The Appellant’s right to a fair hearing was violated by the procedure adopted by the Learned Trial Judge, which thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

“In the circumstances, the entire decision of the Trial Court adjudging the Appellant in contempt summarily, on mere affidavit evidence and without compliance with the statutory procedure, is a nullity.”

On ground three, she said that the Trial Judge erred in law when she adjudged the Appellant’s satirical apology, dated the 27th day of April, 2025, addressed to the 3rd Respondent and relating squarely to allegations of sexual harassment, as contemptuous and amounting to disobedience of the Order of the Court made on the 4th day of April, 2025, which specifically restrained comments relating to the subject matter of the suit.

She said, “The Appellant’s satirical apology, dated the 27thday of April, 2025, and addressed to the 3rd Respondent, was manifestly in respect of allegations of sexual harassment, which were unconnected to the subject matter of the substantive dispute.

“The question for determination and the reliefs sought in the Appellant’s originating summons, when construed holistically, relate squarely to the propriety or otherwise of the referral of the Appellant to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, as being ultra vires her constitutional right to fair hearing and the rules of the Senate, leading to her suspension during the pendency of suit.

“The sexual harassment allegation was not before the Trial Court. The liability as adjudged by the Learned Trial Judge against the Appellant with respect to a subject matter unrelated to the judicial proceedings before her ladyship was erroneous and, indeed, perverse.”

Further on ground four for the appeal, Akpoti Uduaghan said that the Trial Judge erred in law when she directed the Appellant to tender an apology to the Court in two national dailies and on her Facebook page, and to pay the sum of N5million only as a fine to the Court.

She said, “The Appellant was not liable for contempt, as the satirical apology was unconnected to the subject matter of the suit.

“The purpose of the Order was to restrain the parties and Counsel alike from discussing the substantive matter of the suit before the media, including social media.

“Neither the Appellant nor her counsel had discussed the subject matter of the suit before the Trial Court in the press as directed by the Trial Judge.

“The Learned Trial Judge misapprehended the Appellant’s satirical apology, which led to her ladyship’s expansion of the scope of her orders, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”

On ground five, Akpoti-Uduaghan said the Judge erred in law she substituted the reliefs sought by the 3rd Respondent vide its application filed on the 7th day of May, 2025 for contempt with her own order, imposing punitive cost of N5million only against the Appellant which occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

She said, “The 3rd Respondent’s application for contempt sought inter alia for an order to delete the said satirical apology and an apology to the Judiciary and the 3rd Respondent simpliciter.

“The 3rd Respondent’s application filed on the 7th day of May, 2025, did not expressly seek the payment of a fine of N5million only or any amount whatsoever.

“The Learned Trial Judge expressly in her decision, substituted the 3rd Respondent’s reliefs sought with her own order.

“The law is settled that the Court and indeed the parties are bound by the reliefs sought on the face of the application under reference.

“The imposition of a fine by a Trial Court judge is in the realm of criminal sanctions.

“The Learned Trial Judge can only award cost to the successful party as indemnity in a civil proceedings and not to impose criminal sanction in the form of fines payable to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

“The decision of the Learned Trial Judge to substitute 3rd Respondent’s reliefs sought with her own orders extraneous to the motion paper for amounts to descending into the arena of conflict which occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”

On her ground six for the appeal, Akpoti-Uduaghan said the award of N5million only against the Appellant is excessive and punitive.

She said, “The offence the Appellant was alleged to have committed is a minor offence that borders on misunderstanding of the scope of the Court orders made on the 4th day of April, 2025.

“The Appellant in her counter affidavit expressly denied any attempt or intention to flout or disobey the orders of the Court.

“The Learned Trial Judge’s decision in awarding the sum of N5million only in light of the facts and circumstances of the case was excessive and indeed punitive.”

…to head the diaspora and NGOs committee.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central, has been removed as chairperson of the Senate Committee on Diaspora and Non-Governmental Organizations.

Senate President Godswill Akpabio announced the change during Thursday’s plenary session.

Aniekan Bassey, the senator representing Akwa Ibom North-East and a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was appointed as the new committee chairman.

“The new chairman is Distinguished Senator Aniekan Bassey, and it will take effect from today,” he said.

Akpabio also hinted at a broader reshuffling of committee positions, saying a review of vice chairmanships would be undertaken in the coming week to ensure a more equitable distribution.

“We will make some changes to our vice chairmanship positions next week. Some of the senators have two vice chairmanship positions. Every senator should either be a chairman or a vice chairman so we balance the situation,” he said.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, a first-time senator on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), had previously chaired the senate committee on local content until her removal in February.

She was subsequently reassigned to head the diaspora and NGOs committee.

With her latest removal, she no longer holds chairmanship of any senate committee.

Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended in March over alleged gross misconduct following an altercation with Akpabio over seating arrangements.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan yesterday failed to resume at the Senate.

The Kogi Central representative was suspended for six months for alleged misconduct.

It was speculated that she would resume yesterday following a court judgment.

The Senator did not pick up calls when our reporter tried to ascertain why she had not resumed.

Our correspondent observed an unusually heavy security presence at the main entrances to the National Assembly.

Two mobile policemen attired in anti-riot gear were seen at the barrier set up behind the National Arcade leading to the main entrance.

Other policemen were also seen positioned in strategic sports with their operational vans numbering up to three on both sides of the main gate.

There was traffic build-up on approach to the inner entrance of the National with an unusual number of sergeant-at-arms scrutinising all vehicles and their occupants before allowing them to proceed.

Most vehicles were seen reversing and going out through the main entrance due to the traffic.

Many visitors without inner car park permits who were able to scale security were denied entrance into the main complex.

Akpoti-Uduaghan blamed her suspension on her alleged refusal to yield to sexual advance by Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

READ ALSO: Why ADC can never be like ANC

Akpabio has since denied the allegation while the wife Nnoma Akpabio sued Akpoti-Uduaghan for defamation.

Akpoti-Uduaghan also sued the Senate in a bid to quash her suspension.

Delivering her judgment, Justice Nyako faulted the provision of chapter eight of the Senate Standing Rules as well as Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers & Privileges Act, declaring both as overreaching.

The court stressed that the two legislations failed to specify the maximum period that a serving lawmaker could be suspended from office.

Justice Nyako stated that while the Senate had the authority to discipline its members, such disciplinary actions must not strip citizens of representation in the National Assembly.

She noted that since the Senate was constitutionally required to sit for only 181 days in a legislative year, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s 180-day suspension amounted to denying the people of Kogi Central effective participation in national governance.

“The court is not saying that the Senate lacks the power to sanction a member.

“However, such sanctions must not negate the constitutional right of constituents to be represented in parliament,” Justice Nyako ruled.

The court, however, found Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt over a satirical apology she posted on her Facebook page on April 27.

Justice Nyako held that after reviewing the post and the application before her instituted by the third respondent, she was satisfied that it was linked to the suspension matter before the court and therefore found the plaintiff guilty of contempt.

The judge ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan to publish an apology in two national dailies and on her Facebook page within seven days. She also imposed a fine of N5 million.

The judgment has been subjected to varying interpretations with some claiming that it has quashed Natasha’s suspension and ordered her reinstatement.

Others claim that the judge did not make any such order but only offered an opinion.

Akpoti-Uduaghan had told some of her jubilant supporters in a video trending on social media that she would resume her legislative activities in the Red Chamber on Tuesday.

She thanked her constituents for standing by her, following the favourable court judgment that reaffirmed her position in the Senate.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has said that despite her suspension, she never stopped working for the people she represents.

The senator representing Kogi Central, who was suspended by the Senate for six months in March over alleged misconduct, said she remained constantly engaged in delivering democratic dividends for her people and pursuing their welfare.

According to a statement by her media office in Abuja, the Senator made the remark on Sunday as she flagged off the construction of smart markets in Okene and Okehi Local Government Areas, a project designed to uplift local traders, particularly women, and strengthen grassroots economic development.

Each of the new markets will consist of 80 modern shops—comprising 40 lock-up units and 40 open stalls, complete with solar-powered electricity, boreholes, modern toilets, sockets in each shop, truck-friendly loading bays, and security-enhancing streetlights all aimed at making the market secured and efficient.

The markets are sited at Ihima Central Market in Oboroke, Okehi LGA, and a new Community Market in Okene LGA, both chosen for their suitability and potential for expansion.

The project is part of the senator’s broader development plan for Kogi Central, which includes several other constituency interventions slated for rollout in the coming months.

The markets are expected to be completed and commissioned in November 2025, to coincide with her second anniversary in the office.

Read Also: Natasha poised to resume at senate tomorrow

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan reiterated her inclusive approach to leadership, stating that service to the people transcends political affiliation, and reaffirmed her dedication to delivering lasting infrastructure and economic opportunities across the senatorial district.

Highlighting her inclusive approach to governace, she added: ‘ i represent all the good people of Kogi Central at the Senate. Politics happens during elections, and after that it’s performance that would impact everyone irrespective of political differences”

The event was attended by traditional leaders, women groups, and Youth organisations, who lauded the Senator’s resilience, commitment, and continued service despite being faced with persistent political hurdles.