Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed a notice of appeal challenging the judgment of the Federal High Court that ordered the recall of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Nigerian Senate. The appeal, dated July 14, 2025, was filed through his lead counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), and seeks to overturn the July 4 ruling delivered by Justice Binta Nyako.
The Federal High Court had earlier ruled that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension was excessive and lacked legal justification. Dissatisfied with the verdict, Akpabio’s legal team filed an appeal marked CA/2025, raising 11 grounds against the lower court’s decision. The appeal stems from suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, which Akpoti-Uduaghan instituted to challenge her suspension.
In the appeal, Akpabio’s counsel argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case, stating that it concerns the internal affairs of the National Assembly, which are outside the judicial purview under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. The legal team also contended that matters relating to suspensions, words spoken during plenary, and Senate resolutions are protected by the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and should not be subject to judicial interference.
Akpabio also claimed that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan did not exhaust the internal mechanisms of the Senate, particularly the Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petitions, as required by the Senate Standing Orders, 2023 (as amended), before heading to court. He further faulted the trial court for allegedly breaching his right to a fair hearing by raising and deciding on issues not canvassed by either party, including whether the suspension was excessive.
The Senate President maintained that the Federal High Court overstepped its bounds by making recommendations for the recall of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, despite the fact that such relief was not specifically sought in her originating summons. According to him, the court granted reliefs that were never asked for, thereby crossing the line.
Akpabio also argued that the trial court erred by merging interlocutory reliefs with substantive claims despite their duplication, and insisted that the suit ought to have been struck out for failure to comply with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Act, which mandates a three-month notice to be served on the Clerk of the National Assembly before legal proceedings can commence.
He urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, strike out duplicated reliefs contained in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s multiple applications, and dismiss her suit for lack of jurisdiction. He also asked the appellate court to reject what he described as “advisory opinions” issued by the trial judge to the Senate, particularly those relating to amending its rules or recalling a suspended member.
In addition, Akpabio requested the court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to determine his preliminary objection and ultimately dismiss the entire case.
