Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed an appeal against the Federal High Court ruling that ordered the reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, following her earlier suspension from the Senate.
In a notice of appeal lodged at the Court of Appeal, Akpabio is asking for the July 4 judgment by Justice Binta Nyako to be overturned.
His legal team contends that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, arguing that the issue relates to the internal workings of the National Assembly, which are protected from judicial intervention under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The 11-point appeal also challenges the trial court’s dismissal of Akpabio’s preliminary objection and its issuance of directives that, he argues, intrude upon the legislative process.
Akpabio maintained that matters such as suspensions, utterances during plenary, and resolutions of the Senate fall under the protection of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and cannot be reviewed by the judiciary.
He further argued that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit was filed prematurely, bypassing the Senate’s internal resolution mechanisms, including the Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, as stipulated by the Senate Standing Orders (2023, as amended).
The Senate President also accused the trial court of denying him fair hearing, raising issues not brought up by either party—such as whether Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension was excessive—and issuing recommendations on her recall without giving both parties the chance to be heard.
In addition, Akpabio’s appeal criticized the trial court for combining interim reliefs with the main case, and for allowing what he described as “duplicated reliefs” in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s application.
He further noted that the case should have been dismissed for non-compliance with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Act, which requires a three-month pre-litigation notice to be served on the Clerk of the National Assembly.
Among his prayers, Akpabio is asking the Court of Appeal to quash the lower court’s judgment, strike out the duplicated claims, dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, and reject what he terms as “advisory opinions” by the court to the Senate, particularly those concerning the recall process and internal rule amendments.
He also called on the appellate court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to resolve his preliminary objections and dismiss the case entirely.
Advertisement
