The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has on Thursday declared that the petition to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, falls short of the constitutional requirements under Section 69(a) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended), effectively frustrating efforts to unseat the embattled lawmaker.
In a concise statement posted on its official X handle on Thursday afternoon, INEC announced, “The petition for the recall of the Senator representing the Kogi Central Senatorial District has not met the requirements of Section 69(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).” The electoral body reiterated this position in a follow-up release, underscoring that the bid to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan failed to satisfy the legal threshold for such a process.
Section 69(a) of the 1999 Constitution states that a recall petition must be signed by more than half of the registered voters in the affected constituency and presented to INEC, which then verifies the signatures before proceeding. INEC’s statement suggests that the petition, initiated by constituents reportedly dissatisfied with Akpoti-Uduaghan’s performance, fell short of this numerical or procedural benchmark, though specific details—such as the number of signatures submitted—were not disclosed.
The announcement comes amid heightened political tension in Kogi State, where Akpoti-Uduaghan, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) senator, has faced scrutiny following her six-month suspension from the Senate in March 2025 over alleged misconduct. Her recent homecoming event in Okene, despite a state government ban on rallies, further fueled controversy, with Kogi officials accusing her of inciting unrest. The recall effort, spearheaded by the PDP Youth Alliance for Good Governance, had gained traction in recent weeks, with proponents claiming she failed to represent her constituents effectively.
INEC’s rejection of the petition marks a setback for her critics, who had hoped to leverage Section 69 to force a referendum on her tenure. The terse statement, devoid of elaboration, leaves room for speculation about whether the shortfall lies in signature numbers, verification issues, or other technicalities. The commission has not indicated whether petitioners can resubmit a revised request, a possibility under the law if deficiencies are addressed.
