Breaking: Akpabio Appeals Court Order on Senator Natasha’s Recall

The Federal High Court in Abuja’s ruling ordering the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the upper legislative chamber after her suspension has been challenged by Senate President Godswill Akpabio in a notice of appeal.
The appeal, recorded as CA/A//2025, was filed in the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division on July 14, 2025. It is related to suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, which was previously filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to challenge her Senate suspension of six months.
In the appeal, which SaharaReporters was able to receive on Monday, Akpabio criticized Justice Binta Nyako’s July 4 decision that deemed Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension to be “excessive and legally unjustified.”

On eleven grounds, the Senate President is appealing, claiming that the trial court erred in law by taking on jurisdiction over what he defined as a topic that solely involved the National Assembly’s internal operations.

They argued that the court had overreached its constitutional bounds, citing Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.

The fundamental tenet of Akpabio’s legal team’s position is that courts shouldn’t become involved in procedural or disciplinary issues within the Senate, particularly when they concern the behavior and privileges of its members.

Therefore, 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 compliance with its Standing Rules.

In particular, he contests the court’s decision to dismiss his preliminary objection, its ruling regarding the length and legality of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, and its suggestion that the Senate ask for her to return to her position.

Akpabio’s grounds of appeal include the claim that by taking on jurisdiction over Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit, which was filed too soon and against the Senate’s internal dispute resolution procedures as outlined in the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended), the trial judge caused a miscarriage of justice.

Additionally, he maintains that before Akpoti-Uduaghan went to court, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions ought to have handled the issue internally.

The Senate President further contends that the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act’s provisions, which protect legislative proceedings from judicial scrutiny, were not applied by the lower court.

According to him, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s allegation stemmed from Senate resolutions and remarks made during a plenary session, both of which are covered by the Act.

He claims that by bringing up concerns that were not raised by any side or discussed throughout the proceedings, the Federal High Court violated his right to a fair hearing.

In particular, he argues that the trial judge incorrectly raised the issue of whether Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month ban was excessive and proceeded to urge her recall without consulting the relevant parties.

According to the notice of appeal, Akpabio’s legal team contends that, despite the reliefs being duplicated in both applications, the lower court erred in ruling on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory application by combining the reliefs requested therein with those in her substantive originating summons.

Additionally, he argues 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.

As a result of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s failure to adhere to the statutory requirement under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which requires anyone with a cause of action against a legislative house to serve a three-month written notice on the Clerk of the National Assembly outlining the cause of action and the reliefs sought, Akpabio further contends that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the suit.

Akpabio is pleading for an order permitting the appeal and reversing the portions of the ruling where the lower court rejected his preliminary objection, determined that the six-month suspension was excessive, and suggested that the Senate recall Akpoti-Uduaghan as part of the reliefs requested before the Court of Appeal.

Read Also: Buhari Died in London After Promising Quality Healthcare at Home – Adetoun Fires

Additionally, 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. Additionally, 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.

Akpabio’s legal team contends in the notice of appeal 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 lacks the authority to suggest changes to the Senate Standing Orders or to meddle in the Senate’s internal operations.

According to the court document, Akpabio is seeking the following relief:

This cross-appeal is permitted by an order of this Honorable Court.

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 unfair 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 applications for an originating summons, a mandatory injunction, and an interlocutory injunction.

iv) A court order using the authority granted by 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 lack of jurisdiction.

“v) ANY ADDITIONAL ORDERS THE COURT MAY DETER IN THE FAVOR OF JUSTICE.”