Daniel Otera
A fresh round of legal fireworks is unfolding at the Court of Appeal as Senate President Godswill Akpabio challenges a Federal High Court judgment that nullified the six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central.
In a notice of cross-appeal dated 11 July 2025, Mr Akpabio, through his lead counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, described the trial court’s ruling as both “erroneous” and “a gross miscarriage of justice.” He is asking the appellate court to uphold the Senate’s authority to discipline its members, including the power to impose suspensions.
The development comes barely 48 hours after Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan herself approached the same appellate court, seeking to overturn a ₦5 million fine imposed on her by Justice Binta Nyako. The fine was part of a contempt ruling arising from a satirical Facebook post made while her legal challenge against the Senate’s decision was still pending.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended on 20 February 2024 during a plenary session of the Senate. The leadership accused her of misconduct, though specific allegations were never made public.
Shortly after the suspension, she approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking a declaration that the action was unconstitutional. In a ruling delivered in June 2025, Justice Nyako held that the Senate’s action was excessive, punitive, and a violation of the constitutional rights of her constituents in Kogi Central.
“The suspension of a sitting senator for six months disenfranchises her constituents,” the judge held. “That cannot be justified under any legislative powers the Senate may claim to have.”
While the court ruled in her favour, Justice Nyako stopped short of issuing a mandamus order compelling the Senate to reinstate her.
The Senate President’s cross-appeal raises eleven grounds challenging the judgment. His legal team contends that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over an internal parliamentary matter. They argue that the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petitions had not concluded its inquiry when the suit was filed, rendering the matter premature.
Mr Akpabio also contends that the senator failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms as required under the Senate’s Standing Orders before seeking judicial intervention.
A central point in the appeal revolves around Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017, which the court cited in its ruling. The law states:
“A Legislative House shall not suspend a member for more than fourteen days without the approval of the Legislative House concerned.”
Legal experts interpret this provision to mean that any suspension exceeding 14 days must receive formal approval by the entire chamber. The Federal High Court appeared to rely on this limit in ruling the six-month suspension as “excessive and unconstitutional.”
However, Mr Akpabio’s legal team argues that the Act does not exempt serving lawmakers from disciplinary procedures, and that the Senate’s Standing Orders give the chamber authority to maintain order through internal sanctions.
“The learned trial judge erred in law when she interpreted the Legislative Houses Act in a manner that strips the Senate of its disciplinary authority over its members,” the appeal stated.
Mr Akpabio also claimed that his right to a fair hearing was violated, alleging that the judge raised and ruled on the issue of proportionality of the suspension suo motu that is, without prompting from either party without giving his legal team the opportunity to respond.
While the Senate President seeks to overturn the judgment, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan is also contesting a separate ruling by the same court. In her own appeal, she is challenging the ₦5 million fine imposed on her for contempt over a social media post mocking the Senate.
Justice Nyako ruled that the post, made during active legal proceedings, amounted to civil contempt. However, the senator argues that her comment was protected under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, particularly where public officials and legislative actions are involved.
In her six-ground appeal, she described the contempt ruling as “legally unfounded and inconsistent with her rights.”
The ongoing legal dispute has revived a long-standing constitutional debate over the Senate’s power to suspend members beyond 14 sitting days. Nigerian courts have consistently ruled such suspensions unconstitutional when they amount to the disenfranchisement of constituents.
In 2017, the Federal High Court declared the Senate’s suspension of Senator Ali Ndume unlawful. Justice Babatunde Quadri ruled that the suspension was illegal, and directed the Senate to reinstate him and pay his outstanding entitlements.
Similarly, in 2018, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba ruled in favour of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, who had been suspended for 90 legislative days. The court held that such an extended suspension was contrary to both the Constitution and the Legislative Houses Act.
Legal experts have repeatedly argued that any prolonged suspension without due process or clear legislative approval violates Section 4 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of constituents to representation.
“The courts have been consistent in saying you can’t punish a whole constituency for the perceived misconduct of a senator,” said constitutional lawyer Abdul Mahmud. “Representation is at the heart of democracy. It must not be eroded by internal politics or vendettas.”
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension has drawn criticism from women’s rights activists and civil society organisations, who argue that the action reflects broader efforts to silence women in politics.
As one of only eight female senators in Nigeria’s 109-member upper legislative chamber and the only woman representing the North-Central her suspension was seen as both politically and symbolically significant.
“Natasha’s suspension is a sad day for Nigerian women,” said women’s rights advocate Hadiza Ado in an interview with the BBC. “We already have poor representation in the legislature, and to see the few voices we have being muted without transparency is unacceptable.”
Prominent human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, also described the suspension as unconstitutional, calling on the Senate to reverse it. “The courts have ruled in multiple cases, including Ndume v Senate, that legislative bodies cannot suspend members in a way that denies citizens their right to representation,” Mr Falana said.
With both parties now appealing aspects of the Federal High Court’s ruling, the Court of Appeal is expected to deliver a decision that could shape how far legislative bodies can go in disciplining their members.
Should the Court uphold the High Court’s judgment, it may create a lasting judicial precedent limiting suspensions of elected lawmakers. Conversely, a reversal may reinforce the principle of internal legislative independence.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has already written to the Clerk of the National Assembly through her lawyer, Michael Numa, SAN, expressing her readiness to resume legislative duties by Tuesday, 15 July.
“The Senate must treat this matter with urgency to avoid constitutional embarrassment,” her legal team noted.
The Senate, however, maintains that the judgment did not include a direct enforcement order, and has opted to await the outcome of the appeal.