Senate President Godswill Akpabio has formally challenged the ruling of the Federal High Court that ordered the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, describing the judgement as a judicial overreach into parliamentary affairs.
Akpabio filed a notice of appeal dated July 14 at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, contesting the court’s July 4 decision that declared Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension from the Senate as excessive and without legal basis.
The appeal, marked CA/A//2025, originates from suit FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan to challenge her suspension from the Red Chamber.
Akpabio, through his legal team, is asking the appellate court to overturn the judgement delivered by Justice Binta Nyako.
He is arguing on 11 grounds, mainly that the Federal High Court lacked the legal authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the National Assembly.
According to the notice of appeal, Akpabio stated that the court “erred in law when it assumed jurisdiction over a matter which pertains to the internal workings of the National Assembly,” insisting that such matters fall outside the court’s jurisdiction as outlined in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
He maintained that disputes concerning a senator’s rights and privileges must be addressed internally and not through the judiciary.
Furthermore, he argued that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s matter should have first been taken to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, as specified in the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended).
Akpabio also contended that the Federal High Court breached his right to fair hearing.
READ ALSO: Senate Won’t Recall Natasha Without Certified Court Judgment — Spokesperson
He claimed the court raised issues not presented by any of the parties, particularly the claim that the suspension was “excessive”, and made recommendations for her recall without allowing the parties to respond.
He further faulted the court for merging the reliefs sought in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory and substantive applications, and for proceeding with the suit despite what he described as her violation of an earlier court order banning public commentary.
Additionally, the Senate President argued that Akpoti-Uduaghan did not comply with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which requires any individual seeking redress against a legislative house to give a three-month written notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly.
Akpabio’s legal team criticised the trial court for offering what they termed “advisory opinions” on how the Senate should handle the recall, asserting that such direction is outside the constitutional mandate of the judiciary.
He is asking the Court of Appeal for the following:
“i) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court allowing this cross-appeal.
> “ii) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside the parts of the decision of the lower Court where the lower court dismissed the Appellant’s preliminary objection, and opined that (i) the 6 month suspension of the 1st Respondent was excessive and (ii) it believed that the 3rd Respondent should recall the 1st Respondent to the Senate.
“iii) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out duplicated reliefs contained in the 1st Respondent’s application for interlocutory injunction, application for mandatory injunction and originating summons.
“iv) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court invoking the powers of this Honourable Court under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to determine the Appellant’s notice of preliminary objection and dismiss the 1st Respondent’s suit at the lower Court for want of jurisdiction.
“v) ANY OTHER ORDERS the Court may deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.”