The legal war between Senate President Godswill Akpabio and suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has intensified with Akpabio filing an appeal against a Federal High Court verdict directing the recall of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate. This development signals a serious battle between Nigeria’s court and legislature about the boundaries of judicial participation in legislative matters.
Earlier this year, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended from the Senate for six months, a sentence that created great controversy and public discussion. She contested this suspension in court, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated her rights as a lawmaker.
On July 4, 2025, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja decided in favor of Akpoti-Uduaghan, calling her suspension as harsh and without legal grounding. The verdict directed the Senate to recall her, essentially nullifying the suspension. This ruling was seen by many as a judicial check on legislative disciplinary actions.
In response, Senate President Godswill Akpabio filed a notice of appeal on July 14, 2025, at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, seeking to reverse the High Court verdict. His appeal centers on 11 grounds alleging that the Federal High Court exceeded its constitutional power by intervening in the internal business of the National Assembly, which Akpabio argues is outside the court’s jurisdiction under Section 251 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.
Akpabio’s legal team believes that the High Court erred by giving what they term “advisory opinions” aimed at the Senate’s internal disciplinary procedures—including suggestions that Senate Standing Orders be altered to assist the recall. Such orders, they claim, are unlawful intrusions into legislative power.
Additionally, Akpabio’s appeal challenges the lower court’s rejection of his preliminary objection to the complaint and maintains that the six-month ban was appropriate. The appeal also seeks to throw down what it characterizes as repeated reliefs in Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims for interlocutory and obligatory injunctions.
A significant aspect of the appeal involves statutory procedural obligations. Akpabio contends that Akpoti-Uduaghan neglected to serve a statutory three-month written notice on the Clerk of the National Assembly before beginning legal actions, as required by Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act. This failure, according to the Senate President, robbed the court of authority to adjudicate the matter.
Invoking Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, Akpabio is seeking the appellate court to reject the whole matter on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. This raises basic problems about the separation of powers and the proper channels for addressing conflicts affecting internal parliamentary discipline.
The appeal illustrates a significant contradiction between the judiciary’s duty to defend individual rights and the legislature’s constitutional competence to control its affairs. Akpabio’s side contends that enabling judges to determine Senate disciplinary measures creates a dangerous precedent that undermines legislative independence.
Conversely, proponents for Akpoti-Uduaghan saw the court’s verdict as a crucial judicial check on possibly arbitrary or disproportionate legislative punishments, upholding the concept that no public figure is above the law.
Legal commentators remark that no obligatory court order was ever issued to recall Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. The High Court’s words regarding recalling her were regarded as obiter dicta—non-binding advising commentary—and not enforceable commands. Nonetheless, the publicity surrounding the verdict produced uncertainty, with Akpoti-Uduaghan’s side praising the judgment as a complete vindication.
The Court of Appeal will now review the appeal filed by Akpabio, paying special regard to the constitutional concerns of jurisdiction and legislative privilege. The judgment would have extensive repercussions for the interplay between Nigeria’s judicial and legislative branches, including the degree to which courts may interfere in parliamentary operations.
Meanwhile, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has hinted she would strongly fight Akpabio’s appeal, insisting on her reinstatement and the revocation of her suspension. The legal fight continues to develop amid heightened public attention, with observers considering it as a test case for Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
The appeal by Senate President Godswill Akpabio against the court decision recalling Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan embodies a complicated constitutionality debate, pitting legislative power against judicial scrutiny. How the Court of Appeal determines would create a precedent on the balance of power between Nigeria’s organs of government and define legal limitations surrounding legislative discipline.
This case is symbolic of bigger issues confronting Nigeria’s democracy: preserving individual rights while respecting institutional autonomy and supporting the rule of law within constitutional constraints.
Post a Comment