Sunday Aborisade in Abuja

Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed a formal appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking to overturn a judgment of the Federal High Court that ordered the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate.

The legal development marked a deepening confrontation between the judiciary and the legislature over what constitutes internal parliamentary affairs.

The notice of appeal, obtained by THISDAY, was dated July 14, 2025, and stemmed from suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 which was instituted by Akpoti-Uduaghan to challenge her six-month suspension from the Red Chamber.

The controversial suspension, which sparked public outcry and legal action earlier this year, was quashed on July 4 by Justice Binta Nyako, who described it as excessive and lacking legal foundation.

In response, Akpabio, through his legal team, filed an 11-ground appeal urging the appellate court to set aside the judgment and dismiss the entire suit on the basis that the trial court acted beyond its jurisdiction.

At the heart of Akpabio’s appeal was the argument that the Federal High Court overstepped its constitutional boundaries by intervening in what he describes as the internal business of the National Assembly.

He argued that matters concerning the suspension of lawmakers fall under the exclusive purview of the legislative chamber and are protected from judicial interference by Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.

Akpabio faulted the lower court’s dismissal of his preliminary objection, which challenged the competence of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit.

He maintained that she ought to have exhausted the Senate’s internal resolution mechanisms, particularly through the Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, before turning to the courts.

Furthermore, the Senate President contends that the complaint raised by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan originated from comments and resolutions made during plenary, which are protected by law from judicial scrutiny.

He cited provisions of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, arguing that the court erred in entertaining a case based on proceedings shielded under the Act.

Akpabio’s legal team also accused the Federal High Court of raising and deciding issues that were not presented or argued by either party, particularly its declaration that the six-month suspension was excessive and its recommendation that the Senate recall the suspended lawmaker.

According to the notice of appeal, Akpabio further alleged procedural missteps by the trial judge, including merging reliefs sought in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory applications with those in her substantive suit.

He argued this resulted in duplication and confusion, undermining his right to a fair hearing.

Significantly, Akpabio argued that the court ignored a key statutory requirement under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.

The legislation according to Akpabio,  mandates that anyone intending to sue a legislative house must serve a written notice on the Clerk of the National Assembly at least three months before commencing legal action.

He maintained that  Akpoti-Uduaghan failed to comply with this requirement, thereby robbing the court of jurisdiction to hear the case.

In his prayers before the Court of Appeal, Akpabio seeks an order allowing the appeal, striking out duplicated reliefs, and invoking Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to dismiss the suit outright for want of jurisdiction.

Specifically, the reliefs sought include: “An order setting aside the High Court’s dismissal of his preliminary objection; a reversal of the finding that the six-month suspension was excessive; a nullification of the recommendation that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan be recalled; striking out of duplicated reliefs across the interlocutory and substantive applications; and dismissal of the entire suit based on lack of jurisdiction.”

The appeal also criticized what it describes as the lower court’s “advisory opinion” on how the Senate should handle internal disciplinary actions, calling such commentary an unconstitutional overreach into legislative autonomy.

This appeal is poised to rekindle debate over the scope of judicial authority in legislative matters, especially in light of increasing litigation by lawmakers challenging disciplinary measures imposed by their own chambers.

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has yet to respond formally to the notice of appeal, but legal observers suggest the case could become a landmark decision on the separation of powers and legislative privilege in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

As the Court of Appeal prepares to hear the matter, all eyes will be on whether it upholds the High Court’s intervention or sides with Akpabio in asserting parliamentary independence from judicial oversight.

​