Godswill Akpabio, the president of the Senate, has filed a notice of appeal against the Federal High Court’s ruling in Abuja that ordered Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to be recalled to the upper house of parliament after being suspended.
The appeal, which was filed on July 14, 2025, at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, is registered under the number CA/A//2025. It is related to the lawsuit, FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had previously filed to challenge her six-month Senate suspension.
Akpabio criticized the July 4 order by Justice Binta Nyako, which deemed Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension “excessive and legally unjustified,” in the appeal, which SaharaReporters was able to get on Monday.
By claiming that the trial court erred in law when it took on jurisdiction over what he described as an issue that solely involved the internal operations of the National Assembly, the Senate President is appealing on eleven grounds.
Citing the 1999 Constitution’s Section 251, they argued that the court had overreached its constitutional bounds.
Akpabio’s legal team claims that the foundation of their case is the conviction that courts shouldn’t become involved in procedural or disciplinary issues within the Senate, particularly when they concern the behavior and rights of its members.
In order to uphold the Senate’s authority to suspend members in compliance with its Standing Rules, Akpabio is pleading with the appellate court to overturn the Federal High Court’s ruling.
The court’s ruling regarding the length and legality of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, its recommendation that the Senate recall her to resume her duties, and the dismissal of his preliminary objection are all directly contested by him.
The claim that the trial judge committed a miscarriage of justice by taking on 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), is one of Akpabio’s grounds of appeal.
Before Akpoti-Uduaghan went to court, he additionally maintains that the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions ought to have handled the issue internally.
The parliamentary Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act’s provisions, which protect parliamentary proceedings from judicial examination, were not applied by the lower court, according to the Senate President.
“Akpoti-Uduaghan’s complaint stemmed from statements made in a plenary session and Senate resolutions, both of which are protected under the Act,” he said.
He claims that the Federal High Court violated his right to a fair trial by bringing up topics on its own that were not brought up by any side or discussed during the hearing.
He argues, in particular, that the trial judge incorrectly raised the issue of whether Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension was disproportionate and proceeded to urge her recall without first consulting the relevant parties.
Notwithstanding the duplication of reliefs in both applications, 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 therein with those in her substantive originating summons.
He further argues that the court erred in hearing and ruling on the substantive complaint in spite of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s breach of the court’s previous order prohibiting the parties from publicly commenting on the issue.
Read Also: PDP Blasts ADC, Asserts Unrivaled Strength and Unity in Katsina
Along with these allegations, Akpabio contends that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case because Akpoti-Uduaghan did not adhere to the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act’s Section 21, which requires that anyone with a cause of action against a legislative house serve a written notice on the National Assembly Clerk outlining the cause of action and the reliefs sought within three months.
Akpabio is requesting an order from the Court of Appeal that would allow the appeal and set aside the portions of the judgment in which the lower court rejected his preliminary objection, determined that the six-month suspension was excessive, and suggested that the Senate recall Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Additionally, he is asking for an order to strike down what he called redundant reliefs in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s motions for originating summons, mandatory injunction, and interlocutory injunction. Akpabio is also 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.
By providing the Senate with what they refer to as “advisory opinions” on how to manage the recall of a suspended member, the trial court went beyond its constitutional authority, according to Akpabio’s legal team’s notice of appeal. The court, they maintain, lacked the authority to recommend changes to Senate Standing Orders or to meddle in Senate internal affairs.
The court document containing Akpabio’s requested relief states:
This honorable court’s order permitting this cross-appeal.
“ii) AN ORDER of this Honorable Court reversing the portions of the lower court’s decision where 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) A ruling by this Honorable Court that nullifies redundant reliefs in the 1§ Respondent’s applications for an interlocutory injunction, a mandatory injunction, and an initiating summons.
“iv) AN ORDER of this Honorable Court utilizing the authority granted to it 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 for lack of jurisdiction.
“v) ANY OTHER ORDERS the Court may in the interest of justice deem fit to grant.”
