Akpabio Files Appeal Against Court’s Order to Recall Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, Cites Judicial Overreach

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed a notice of appeal contesting the ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja which nullified the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and ordered her immediate recall to the Senate. The notice, dated July 14, 2025, was submitted to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, and is officially registered as CA/A//2025.

This legal move stems from the controversial six-month suspension handed to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate — a decision she challenged in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025. Justice Binta Nyako, who presided over the original case, had ruled on July 4 that the suspension was “excessive and legally unjustified,” effectively mandating the Senator’s return to the legislative chamber.

Internal Senate Affairs or Judicial Overreach? Akpabio Draws the Battle Lines

In the 11-ground appeal, Akpabio’s legal team is challenging what they deem an unconstitutional interference by the judiciary into matters that, by their interpretation, fall strictly within the legislative arm’s jurisdiction. Central to their argument is the assertion that disciplinary actions within the Senate are internal affairs and therefore not subject to judicial review.

Citing Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, Akpabio’s lawyers argue that the trial court overstepped its authority by adjudicating on the legislative procedures of the Senate. They insist that matters concerning the conduct, discipline, and privileges of lawmakers are governed by Senate Standing Orders and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which safeguard parliamentary proceedings from external scrutiny.

Aiyedatiwa Swears In New Commissioners, Reaffirms Commitment to Ondo’s Development Agenda

Akpabio’s Grievances: Jurisdiction, Due Process, and “Advisory Opinions”

Among the core complaints listed in the notice of appeal is the Federal High Court’s dismissal of Akpabio’s preliminary objection, which challenged the competence of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit. His legal counsel claims the judge committed a miscarriage of justice by assuming jurisdiction, especially when internal redress mechanisms within the Senate—namely the Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions—were not exhausted before litigation was initiated.

Akpabio further accuses the court of improperly merging reliefs from Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory application with those in her substantive originating summons, alleging that this compounded the legal confusion and led to a duplicated and unjustified judgment.

Additionally, the Senate President says the court breached fair hearing principles by raising issues not canvassed by either party, notably the judge’s own inquiry into whether the suspension was excessive. According to Akpabio’s appeal, such judicial commentary amounted to “unsolicited advisory opinions” and overreached the boundaries of constitutional adjudication.

A Constitutional Clash: Legislative Autonomy vs. Judicial Oversight

Another contentious point in Akpabio’s appeal is the application of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act. His team asserts that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s complaints — which stemmed from words spoken during Senate plenary and subsequent resolutions — are protected under this Act. Therefore, they argue, the Federal High Court had no basis to interfere.

Moreover, Akpabio insists that the suit failed to comply with Section 21 of the Act, which requires any litigant with a grievance against the National Assembly to first serve a three-month written notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly. The absence of this statutory notice, according to the appeal, renders the entire lawsuit procedurally defective and jurisdictionally incompetent.

Reliefs Sought: A Call for Dismissal and Reversal

In his appeal to the Court of Appeal, Akpabio is requesting multiple reliefs:

1. Reversal of the lower court’s decision, especially its directive to recall Akpoti-Uduaghan.
2. Dismissal of the preliminary objection ruling, which had validated Akpoti-Uduaghan’s standing in court.
3. Striking out of duplicated reliefs found across the interlocutory injunction, mandatory injunction, and originating summons.
4. Invocation of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, empowering the appellate court to dismiss the original suit due to lack of jurisdiction.
5. Any additional orders the appellate court may deem necessary for justice.

In his plea, Akpabio argues that judicial micromanagement of parliamentary processes undermines the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, warning that unchecked judicial intervention could destabilize legislative operations.

The Bigger Picture: What’s at Stake?

This case is not just a legal tussle between two senators; it may shape the future boundaries of judicial intervention in legislative affairs. Should the Court of Appeal uphold Justice Nyako’s ruling, it may set a precedent allowing courts to intervene in internal parliamentary decisions, particularly those involving suspension, expulsion, or discipline of elected lawmakers.

On the other hand, if Akpabio’s appeal succeeds, it could reassert the autonomy of the National Assembly, reinforcing the view that internal regulations and ethics procedures must be fully exhausted before judicial action can be pursued.

As the political landscape evolves ahead of future legislative sessions, the outcome of this appeal will likely influence how disciplinary mechanisms are perceived and enforced within Nigeria’s bicameral legislature.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling, whenever delivered, will be closely watched by legal analysts, lawmakers, and political observers alike — not just for its immediate consequences, but for its long-term constitutional implications.