Court of Appeal Strikes Out Akpabio’s Motions Against High Court Ruling Favoring Senator Natasha

Abuja, Nigeria – In a significant judicial development that underscores the tension within Nigeria’s legislative hierarchy, the Court of Appeal in Abuja has struck out two motions filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio. The motions sought to challenge a Federal High Court judgment that barred the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from taking disciplinary actions against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

Filed on March 20 and March 25, 2025, the motions were withdrawn by Akpabio’s legal team during a recent appellate hearing. The court, presided over by Justice Hamma Barka and joined by Justices Adebukunola Banjoko and Okon Abang, accepted the withdrawal and formally struck out the motions. Additionally, the court ordered Akpabio to pay ₦100,000 in legal costs to Senator Natasha.

“APC Warns Suspended Governor Fubara: Reconcile Or Face Impeachment In Rivers Crisis”

Akpabio’s Appeals Halted in Abuja

The conflict traces its roots to a March 10, 2025, decision by Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The court, in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, ruled in favor of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, granting her relief from a Senate Committee probe that she argued was politically motivated. The investigation was triggered by a heated altercation between her and Senate President Akpabio on February 20, 2025, during plenary proceedings.

Akpabio, seeking to overturn the Federal High Court’s verdict, filed multiple motions at the appellate court, requesting:

• An extension of time to file his appeal,
• Leave to appeal the decision itself,
• A stay of proceedings pending the appeal.

However, the legal challenge was short-lived. Representing Akpabio, counsel Deborah D. Anyanwu applied to withdraw the motions without offering a public explanation. The withdrawal effectively brought the legal offensive to a halt.

The appeal case—officially registered as CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CV/395M/2025—was not only struck out but was also deleted from court records. The Court’s ruling was signed and formalized by Deputy Chief Registrar Josephine J. Ekperobe, who reiterated the order: “Application seeking to withdraw the two Motions dated and filed on the 20/3/2025 and 25/3/2025 is granted and same struck out. Cost of ₦100,000 awarded to the 1st Respondent.”

Senator Natasha Holds Ground

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, had strongly opposed the Senate’s move to investigate her, calling it a blatant breach of due process. Her legal team had argued that the summons and potential disciplinary measures violated her rights and the rules governing legislative conduct. Her legal filings insisted that any actions taken by the Senate Committee during the pendency of the court case should be considered null and void.

The High Court, aligning with her arguments, placed a restriction on the Committee, preventing it from pursuing any punitive steps. This legal safeguard protected Natasha from immediate Senate censure following her fiery exchange with Akpabio.

Her team hailed the appellate decision as a reinforcement of the rule of law and legislative accountability. While Akpabio’s team has remained silent on the reasons behind the withdrawal, the decision signals a potential shift in strategy—possibly an effort to reduce hostilities or explore political resolution outside the courts.

The withdrawal of Akpabio’s motions comes at a time when tensions in the Nigerian Senate are running high. The dispute with Senator Natasha has drawn attention to broader issues of transparency, fairness, and the scope of internal disciplinary mechanisms within the National Assembly. Observers speculate that the Senate President’s reversal may have been advised by political strategists or legal advisors seeking to mitigate institutional strain.

For now, the legal victory adds momentum to Senator Natasha’s position, and the court’s dismissal of the motions brings temporary closure to a contentious chapter in the Senate. However, whether this marks the end of hostilities or merely a pause in an ongoing power struggle remains to be seen.