Akpabio Appeals Court Judgement Ordering Recall Of Senator Natasha
The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has filed a notice of appeal to challenge the judgement of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja which ordered the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate after her controversial suspension.
The notice of appeal, obtained by SaharaReporters on Monday, is dated July 14, 2025, and was filed at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division.
The appeal, marked CA/A//2025, stems from suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, which was instituted by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to contest her suspension from the Red Chamber.
In the notice of appeal, Akpabio is appealing on 11 grounds and asking the appellate court to set aside the judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court.
The court had ordered the Senate to recall Akpoti-Uduaghan, describing her six-month suspension as excessive and lacking legal justification.
Akpabio, through his legal team, argues that the Federal High Court erred in law when it assumed jurisdiction over a matter which, according to him, pertains to the internal workings of the National Assembly and therefore falls outside the court’s jurisdiction as prescribed by Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
He contends that the Federal High Court has no powers to adjudicate on matters concerning the existence or extent of the legal rights and privileges of a member of the National Assembly.
In the notice of appeal, Akpabio listed several parts of the High Court’s ruling which he is dissatisfied with.
He specifically challenges the court’s dismissal of his preliminary objection, its pronouncement on the validity and duration of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, and its recommendation that the Senate should recall her to resume her duties.
Akpabio’s grounds of appeal include the argument that the trial judge occasioned a miscarriage of justice by assuming jurisdiction over Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit, which was filed prematurely and in contravention of the Senate’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms as stipulated in the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended).
He further insists that the matter should have been resolved internally by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions before Akpoti-Uduaghan approached the court.
The Senate President also argues that the lower court failed to apply the provisions of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which shield legislative proceedings from judicial scrutiny.
He stated that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s complaint arose from words spoken during a plenary session and from resolutions passed by the Senate, both of which are protected under the Act.
He accuses the Federal High Court of breaching his right to fair hearing by raising issues suo motu which were neither pleaded by any party nor canvassed during the proceedings.
Specifically, he contends that the trial judge improperly introduced the question of whether the six-month suspension imposed on Akpoti-Uduaghan was excessive and went ahead to make a recommendation for her recall without hearing from the parties on the matter.
According to the notice of appeal, Akpabio’s legal team argues that the lower court erred when it ruled on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory application by merging the reliefs sought therein with those in her substantive originating summons, despite the duplication of reliefs in both applications.
He also claims that the court acted improperly by proceeding to hear and determine the substantive suit despite Akpoti-Uduaghan’s violation of the court’s earlier order restraining parties from making public comments on the matter.
In addition to these claims, Akpabio argues that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because Akpoti-Uduaghan failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which mandates any person with a cause of action against a legislative house to serve a three-month written notice on the Clerk of the National Assembly disclosing the cause of action and the reliefs sought.
In the reliefs sought before the Court of Appeal, Akpabio is praying for an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the parts of the judgement where the lower court dismissed his preliminary objection, held that the six-month suspension was excessive, and recommended that the Senate should recall Akpoti-Uduaghan.
He is also seeking an order striking out what he described as duplicated reliefs in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s applications for interlocutory injunction, mandatory injunction and originating summons. Furthermore, Akpabio is asking the Court of Appeal to invoke its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to dismiss Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit for lack of jurisdiction.
In the notice of appeal, Akpabio’s legal team argues that the trial court went beyond its constitutional powers by offering what they describe as “advisory opinions” to the Senate on how it should handle the recall of a suspended member. They insist that the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of the Senate or to recommend amendments to the Senate Standing Orders.
Akpabio’s relief sought, as contained, in the court document reads:
“i) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court allowing this cross-appeal.
“ii) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside the parts of the decision of the lower Court where the lower court dismissed the Appellant’s preliminary objection, and opined that (i) the 6 month suspension of the 1* Respondent was excessive and (ii) it believed that the 3rd Respondent should recall the 1 Respondent to the Senate.
“iii) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out duplicated reliefs contained in the 1ª Respondent’s application for interlocutory injunction, application for mandatory injunction and originating summons.
“iv) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court invoking the powers of this Honourable Court under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to determine the Appellant’s notice of preliminary objection and dismiss the 1st Respondent’s suit at the lower Court for want of jurisdiction.
“v) ANY OTHER ORDERS the Court may deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.”
