Following her suspension, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was ordered to be recalled to the upper legislative chamber by the Federal High Court in Abuja. Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed a notice of appeal against this decision.
The appeal was filed before the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on July 14, 2025, and it has the registration number CA/A//2025. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had previously filed suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 to challenge her six-month Senate ban.
In the appeal, which SaharaReporters was able to get on Monday, Akpabio criticized Justice Binta Nyako’s July 4 decision that the suspension of Akpoti-Uduaghan was “excessive and legally unjustified.”
According to the Senate President, who is appealing on eleven grounds, the trial court erred in law when it took on jurisdiction over what he described as a subject that solely involved the National Assembly’s internal affairs.
The court went beyond its constitutional bounds, they argued, citing Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The idea that courts shouldn’t get involved in procedural or disciplinary issues within the Senate, particularly when they concern the behavior and privileges of its members, is the foundation of Akpabio’s legal team’s position.
As a result, Akpabio is pleading with the appellate court to overturn the Federal High Court’s ruling and uphold the Senate’s authority to suspend members in line with its Standing Rules.
The court’s decision about the length and legality of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, the dismissal of his preliminary objection, and the suggestion that the Senate recall her to return to work are all directly contested by him.
As part of his grounds for appeal, Akpabio argues that the trial judge erred in law by taking on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawsuit, which was filed too soon and against the Senate’s internal dispute resolution procedures as outlined in Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended).
He also maintains that before Akpoti-Uduaghan went to court, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions ought to have handled the issue internally.
Additionally, according to the Senate President, the lower court did not apply the parliamentary Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act’s provisions, which protect parliamentary proceedings from judicial inspection.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegation, he said, stemmed from Senate resolutions and remarks made during a plenary session, both of which are protected by the Act.
By bringing up topics that were not raised by any side or discussed throughout the proceedings, he claims the Federal High Court violated his right to a fair hearing.
He specifically argues that the trial judge incorrectly raised the issue of whether Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month ban was excessive and proceeded to propose her recall without first consulting the relevant parties.
Akpabio’s legal team contends in the notice of appeal that the lower court erred in ruling on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory application by combining the reliefs requested in that application with those in her substantive originating summons, even though the reliefs were duplicated in both applications.
Additionally, he asserts that the court erred in hearing and ruling on the substantive action even though Akpoti-Uduaghan had disregarded the court’s previous order prohibiting the parties from publicly commenting on the issue.
Along with these allegations, Akpabio contends that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case because Akpoti-Uduaghan did not send a three-month written notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly outlining the cause of action and the reliefs sought, as required by Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.
In his appeal, Akpabio is requesting that the Court of Appeal grant his request and overturn the portions of the ruling in which the lower court rejected his preliminary objection, ruled that the six-month suspension was unwarranted, and suggested that the Senate recall Akpoti-Uduaghan.
In addition, he is requesting that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s applications for an interlocutory injunction, a mandatory injunction, and an originating summons be struck out for what he called redundant reliefs. In addition, Akpabio is requesting that the Court of Appeal dismiss Akpoti-Uduaghan’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction by using its authority under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act.
Read Also: FULL LIST: Buhari’s Funeral Committee: Tinubu Appoints Akume, Wike, Ribadu, Others
In the notice of appeal, Akpabio’s legal team contends that the trial court exceeded its constitutional authority by providing the Senate with what they refer to as “advisory opinions” for how to handle a suspended member’s recall. They maintain that the court did not have the authority to modify Senate Standing Orders or meddle in Senate internal affairs.
As stated in the court filing, Akpabio is seeking the following relief:
A ruling by this Honorable Court that permits this cross-appeal.
ii) AN ORDER of this Honorable Court reversing the portions of the lower court’s decision in which the lower court rejected the appellant’s preliminary objection and held that (i) the 1* Respondent’s six-month suspension was excessive and (ii) the third respondent ought to recall the first respondent to the Senate.
“iii) AN ORDER of this Honorable Court removing redundant reliefs from the 1§ Respondent’s application for a mandatory injunction, an originating summons, and an interlocutory injunction.
iv) AN ORDER of this Honorable Court using its authority under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to decide the Appellant’s notice of preliminary objection and dismiss the suit of the First Respondent at the lower court due to not having the necessary jurisdiction.
“v) ANYTHING ELSE THE COURT MAY DETER in THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE: ORDERS.”
