Did Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja order the Senate to recall suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan? Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE examines the verdict that has been subjected to different interpretations.
Did Justice Binta Nyako order the Senate to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in her July 4 judgment?
The court had affirmed that lawmakers are protected from lawsuits when acting in their official legislative capacity, emphasising the doctrine of separation of powers.
Furthermore, the judge found no violation of Senator Natasha’s fundamental rights by the defendants.
Yet, in a curious twist, Justice Nyako proceeded to examine the case in detail and issued observations that imply the Senate should comply with certain directives.
This has created a grey area.
The Senate is insisting that the verdict delved into a domain traditionally shielded from judicial interference.
For Senator Natasha, the ruling leaves her at a crossroad.
She must now decide between extending an olive branch through apology and diplomacy, or taking the bold step of initiating contempt proceedings, should she believe the Senate is disobeying an order to recall her.
Her next move could set a precedent in the delicate dance between legislative immunity, the just exercise of power and individual rights.
None of the principal combatants seems keen to yield yet; a peaceful resolution appears elusive.
Parties to the dispute are now effectively before the Court of Appeal, challenging the July 4 judgment by Justice Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Akpoti-Uduaghan (Peoples Democratic Party, Kogi Central) was the first to lodge an appeal before the Abuja division of the appellate court, following which the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, filed a cross-appeal.
How it began
Following what the Senate considered unparliamentary conduct by the Senator during its plenary session of February 20, the Senate President on February 25 wrote to the Senate’s Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct to investigate the incident of February 20.
Shortly after the committee commenced its assignment, Akpoti-Uduaghan filed a suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, before the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 3, claiming, among others, to have been denied a fair hearing during the February 20 session.
She listed the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the President of the Senate and the Chairman of the Senate’s Ethics and Privileges Committee, Senator Neda Imasuen as respondents.
Among others, she sought: “A declaration that the second and third defendants’ referral of the events of the 20th day of February, 2025 to the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges, headed by the fourth defendant, without first considering and disposing of the matter of the plaintiff’s privilege duly raised at the plenary session of the second defendant on the 20th day of February, 2025 is unconstitutional, unlawful and ultra vires the powers of the 2nd and 3rd defendants.”
She prayed for an order “setting aside any decision, findings, or recommendations of the fourth defendant arising from the referral of the events of the 20th day of February 2025, for being in violation of the plaintiff’s right to fair hearing and exercise of her privileges conferred under the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended) made pursuant to the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap. 208 LFN 1990”.
How the court decided the suit
In her July 4 judgment, Justice Nyako identified key issues thrown up by the case and resolved them accordingly.
The issues included the plaintiff’s alleged contemptuous conduct, the challenge to the court’s jurisdiction on several grounds, the interpretation of Orders 9, 10 and 11 of the Senate Rules and the right of a member to raise issues of privilege at any time under the Legislative Houses(Powers and Privileges) Act 2017.
There were also the issues relating to whether the February 20 proceedings on the floor of the Senate were lawfully conducted; the power of the Senate President to allocate seats under the Senate Rules; the propriety of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, and whether or not the suit was meritorious.
On contempt
The complaint by Akpabio on this issue was that, despite a pending order of the court barring parties and their lawyers from publicly commenting on the subject of the suit, the plaintiff published what she termed a “satirical apology letter,” addressed to the Senate President on her Facebook page on April 27.
Justice Nyako identified two issues. In resolving them, the judge said: “Having carefully examined all the arguments of the parties, it is evident that the order of 4th April 2025 unambiguously barred all parties and counsel from making press statements or social media posts in relation to the subject matter of this case.
“The plaintiff’s counsel was present in court when the said order was pronounced, and the plaintiff cannot feign ignorance of same.
“From the content of the plaintiff’s Facebook post l, which I have now seen/read, there is no doubt the post alluded to the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s conduct at the plenary of 20th February 2025, and by implication, the investigation and recommendations by the Senate Committee on Ethnics, which are matters forming the basis of the present action.
“The publication, therefore, falls squarely within the scope of the restraint imposed by the court’s order, which post speaks for itself.
“While the plaintiff seeks to rely on her constitutional right to freedom of expression, it must be reiterated that such a right is not absolute.
“Section 45 of the Constitution permits restrictions where such limitations are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
“The order of court, no matter how the parties felt about it, must be obeyed. They have a right to appeal same but not to flout it.
“It is well established in law that disobedience of a court order amounts to contempt. The courts, in a long line of authorities, have consistently held that willful defiance of a court order strikes at the root of the rule of law. No litigant may pick and choose which orders to obey.
“On contempt, having found that the plaintiff acted in breach of this court’s subsisting order, the plaintiff must take responsibility for her actions and remedy same.
“What is the remedy to this contempt? Because this is contempt in a civil cause, I hereby order a fine to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Federal Government treasury in the sum of N5million and to publish a public apology to the court in two national dailies, and on her Facebook page within seven days of today to purge herself of the contempt,” the judge said.
On jurisdiction
In assuming jurisdiction over the case, Justice Nyako held that:
The requirement of a three-month pre-action notice under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 cannot apply to members.
She also held that under Section 1 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017, legislators, including Akpabio and Imasuen are protected from litigation for any action done in the course of their legislative duties.
The judge further held that, by the operation of the doctrine of separation of powers and constitutional provisions, courts lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of legislative houses, except where there is a clear breach of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.
Justice Nyako also found that the cause of action was inchoate because the plaintiff filed the suit before she was suspended.
She, however, held that the court possessed the jurisdiction to hear it because the case bordered on fundamental rights.
On the propriety of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension
Justice Nyako held that although the Senate Rules and the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act allow a member to be suspended, the provision that makes such suspension indefinite offends the Constitution and democratic tenets.
She said: “I have read, in its entirety, the Senate Rules under which the plaintiff was suspended, thus denying the representation of her Senatorial Districts.
“I believe that the Constitution, Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act and the Senate Rules will not intend for that to happen.
“I have read with interest, chapter ix (9) of the Senate Rules and Section 14(2) of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act VIII (8) allow the Senate to suspend a senator until a time determined by the senate (ad infinitum) while Section 14(2) allows for suspension of a member (Senator) in similar terms even without pay.
“I do not think the Constitution envisages this. A Senator is expected to represent his people in either legislative house for a specific number of days per session.
“If any suspension is unwarranted, then I opine that the Act and the Senate Rules should also be specific and not live it at large. A suspension cannot exceed the requisite number of days the member should sit.
“The Constitution says a legislative year is 181 days and the house should sit for this number of days. This makes it at least 36.2 weeks in a year, which is a session.
“To suspend a member for six months means suspension for 180 days and this is half the number of days the member is expected to sit in the house, representing his people. 1 do not think this is the intention of the framer of the law.
“To make a law that has no end is excessive and cannot be the intendment of the law.
“I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to review this provision of the Senate Rules and even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act, both for being over reaching.
“The Senate has the power to and I believe, should recall the plaintiff and allow her to represent the people, who sent her there to represent them,” Justice Nyako said.
On whether the suit was meritorious
Justice Nyako found that the suit was without merit on the grounds that the respondents, in their conduct, did not breach the plaintiff’s right to fair hearing and violated no known laws.
The judge said: “The law is indeed settled that court should not interfere with legislative proceedings of the second defendant, unless there has been a constitutional breach in view of the doctrine of Separation of Powers…
“The courts have consistently held that they lack jurisdiction to interfere in internal affairs of the legislature unless there is clear breach of constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights.
“In the circumstances of this case, as rightly contended by the defendants, an invitation to appear before an Ethics Committee of the Senate is a clear manifestation of procedural fairness, not a breach of it.
“From a careful reading of the originating summons, there exists no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the defendants contravened a statutory or constitutional provisions as the crux of this action is hinged solely on protection of parliamentary privilege on the floor of Senate.”
Part of the enrolled orders
• That, having found that the plaintiff acted in breach of this court’s subsisting order, the plaintiff must take responsibility for her action and remedy same. Thus, an order is hereby made for the plaintiff to pay a fine in the sum of N5million to the Federal Government treasury and to publish a public apology to the court in two national dailies and on her Facebook page within seven days from today, to purge herself of the contempt
• That the preliminary objection succeeds in part, in that some aspects of the cause of actions may be inchoate, but in enforcement of fundamental rights, an act can lie where the infringement is in anticipation – is being, has been or is likely to be breached.
• That Order 6 of the Senate Rules gives the power to allocate and re-allocate seats to Senators to the Senate President without conditions.
• That to suspend a member for a period of six months equals to a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people.
• That I find this excessive and over reaching, noting that it will prevent a member from complying with Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution
• That I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to review the provisions of the Senate Rules and can even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act both for being excessive and over reaching.
• That the Senate has the power to, and I believe, should recall the plaintiff and allow her to resume representing the people who sent her there to represent them.
Parties’ interpretation of the judgment
In a letter, dated July 11, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Michael Numa, requested that the Senate recall his client in compliance with the decision of the court.
Numa said: “We respectfully demand that you give immediate effect to the clear and binding order of the Federal High Court by taking all necessary steps to facilitate Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s resumption of her legislative duties forthwith, in full compliance with the Court’s judgment.”
The Senate thinks otherwise, with its spokesman, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, faulting Numa’s position on the court’s decision.
Adaramodu said: “The Senate wishes to state categorically and for the avoidance of doubt that the certified true copy (CTC) of the enrolled order did not contain any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.
“Nowhere in the judgment did the Court issue a declaratory or injunctive order mandating her recall.
“However, the Senate will consider and deliberate on this judgment and consequently take a constitutionally informed position on the matter and convey the outcome to the affected Senator and the public.”
Issues before the Court of Appeal
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s appeal is directed at the portion of the judgment where the trial court cited her for contempt and among others, imposed a N5m fine.
Some grounds of appeal raised in the notice of appeal include that the trial court lacked the requisite jurisdiction over an ex facie curiae contempt (contempt committed outside the courtroom).
She is also faulting the court’s decision to impose what she termed a criminal sanction (fine) on her without proper process, accusing the trial court of substituting the reliefs beyond what was requested, to include excessiveness and the punitive nature of the fine.”
Akpoti-Uduaghan wants the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court’s decision in relation to the issue of contempt and declare the entire proceedings null and void, quash the N5 million fine, and assert that the satirical post in question did not violate any lawful court order.
She described the judgment as procedurally flawed and an indication of judicial bias.
She also alleges judicial bias, pointing out that similar public commentaries by other senior lawyers involved in the case, including Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) and Monday Ubani (SAN), went unpunished despite repeated media appearances in which they allegedly made prejudicial comments about the ongoing case.
“Justice must be blind and fair. Selective application of contempt proceedings undermines public confidence in the judiciary,” she claimed in one of the grounds of appeal.
In his cross-appeal, Akpabio is particularly unhappy with the decision of the trial court to assume jurisdiction over the suit filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan.
He contends that issues raised in the suit relate solely to the internal affairs of the National Assembly and fall outside judicial purview as provided under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The Senate President faulted the Federal High Court for dismissing his preliminary objection and for issuing orders affecting parliamentary procedures protected by law.
Akpabio wants the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, strike out the duplicated reliefs contained in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s multiple applications, dismiss her suit for lack of jurisdiction and reject what he termed the trial court’s “advisory opinions” to the Senate, especially those relating to amending its rules or recalling a suspended member.
Senate issues caution
The Senate at the weekend warned Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan against plans to forcefully resume plenary today.
It insisted there is no court order mandating her recall.
Adaramodu stated that Justice Nyako’s judgment offered only a non-binding advisory urging the Senate to review its Standing Orders and the suspension, which the court described as possibly excessive.
The judgment, he stressed, did not direct her immediate reinstatement.
The Senate urged her to follow due process and avoid disrupting proceedings.
Not a few Nigerians will be keen to see how this long-running saga – which Natasha called an “injustice that will not stand” – is finally resolved.
