Senate President Akpabio rejects court judgement ordering recall of Sen. Natasha

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed a notice of appeal to challenge the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which ordered the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan following her controversial six-month suspension from the Senate.

The notice of appeal, dated July 14, 2025, was filed at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division.

The appeal is registered as CA/A//2025, and arises from suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, instituted by Akpoti-Uduaghan to contest her suspension from the Red Chamber.

In the appeal, Akpabio is seeking to overturn the July 4, 2025 judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako, which declared Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension excessive and without legal basis, and ordered her immediate recall to the Senate.

Akpabio is contesting the judgment on 11 grounds, arguing primarily that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters related to the internal workings of the National Assembly, which, he maintains, are beyond judicial review under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.

His legal team contends that:

The High Court erred in law by assuming jurisdiction over the case,

The matter should have been handled internally via the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, as stipulated in the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended),

The court failed to properly consider the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which protects legislative proceedings—including words spoken during plenary and resolutions passed—from judicial interference.

Akpabio also faults the court for dismissing his preliminary objection, challenging the ruling on the validity and duration of the suspension, and criticising the court’s recommendation for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s reinstatement.

In addition, the Senate President accuses the court of violating his right to fair hearing by raising and deciding on issues suo motu—issues not canvassed by any party during proceedings—particularly the question of whether the suspension was excessive and the subsequent recommendation for recall.

He also claims that:

The court improperly merged reliefs sought in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory applications with those in her originating summons, despite the apparent duplication,

The lower court proceeded with the case despite Akpoti-Uduaghan’s alleged violation of an earlier order restraining parties from making public comments on the matter,

The suit failed to comply with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which requires that any person intending to sue a legislative house must first give three months’ written notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly.

Akpabio, through his legal counsel, is urging the Court of Appeal to:

Allow the appeal and set aside key aspects of the Federal High Court’s decision;

Strike out duplicated reliefs found in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory and substantive applications;

Invoke the appellate court’s powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction;

Make any further orders deemed necessary in the interest of justice.

He also argues that the Federal High Court overreached its constitutional powers by offering what he describes as “advisory opinions” to the Senate on internal legislative procedures and suggesting amendments to the Senate’s rules.

The reliefs sought by Akpabio as contained in the notice of appeal read:

“i) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court allowing this cross-appeal.
ii) AN ORDER setting aside the parts of the decision of the lower Court where the court dismissed the Appellant’s preliminary objection and held that the six-month suspension of the 1st Respondent was excessive, and recommended that the 3rd Respondent recall the 1st Respondent.
iii) AN ORDER striking out duplicated reliefs in the 1st Respondent’s application for interlocutory injunction, mandatory injunction, and originating summons.
iv) AN ORDER invoking the Court’s powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to determine the Appellant’s preliminary objection and dismiss the 1st Respondent’s suit for want of jurisdiction.
v) ANY OTHER ORDER the Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

The outcome of the appeal is expected to have significant implications for legislative authority, judicial oversight, and the broader debate around separation of powers in Nigeria’s democratic system.