The political landscape in Nigeria witnessed a significant legal tussle between the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, culminating in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The initial spark was ignited by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension from the Senate, a disciplinary action she challenged in the Federal High Court in Abuja. Justice Binta Nyako, presiding over the case, ruled in favor of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, deeming the suspension “excessive” and lacking legal justification. The court subsequently ordered her reinstatement, a decision that prompted Senate President Akpabio to lodge an appeal.
Akpabio’s appeal, filed on July 14, 2025, centers on several key arguments challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the validity of its ruling. His legal team contends that the matter of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension falls squarely within the internal affairs of the National Assembly, thus placing it beyond the reach of judicial intervention. This argument hinges on the interpretation of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, which delineates the powers and limitations of the judiciary in relation to legislative matters. Akpabio further asserts that parliamentary procedures, including suspensions and pronouncements made during plenary sessions, are protected by the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and are therefore immune from judicial scrutiny.
A central pillar of Akpabio’s appeal is the assertion that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan failed to exhaust the established internal dispute resolution mechanisms within the Senate before resorting to legal action. He emphasizes the existence of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, a body specifically designed to address such internal grievances, as outlined in the Senate Standing Orders. By bypassing this internal process, Akpabio argues, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan prematurely initiated legal proceedings, rendering her suit invalid. He also contends that the Federal High Court’s intervention constitutes an undue encroachment on the legislative branch’s autonomy, undermining the principle of separation of powers.
Furthermore, Akpabio raises procedural concerns, accusing the lower court of merging interlocutory reliefs with substantive claims in Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s applications, leading to duplication and procedural irregularities. He also points to an alleged violation of his right to a fair hearing, claiming the judge introduced issues not raised by either party, specifically the question of excessive suspension, and subsequently issued recommendations without affording both sides the opportunity to present arguments. Additionally, Akpabio argues that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s failure to adhere to Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Act, requiring a three-month notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly before legal action, further invalidates her suit.
Akpabio’s appeal also takes issue with what he terms “advisory opinions” issued by the Federal High Court regarding the Senate’s internal rules and the recall of suspended members. He views these recommendations as an overreach of the court’s authority and an attempt to dictate legislative procedures. The crux of his argument is that the judiciary’s role is limited to interpreting and applying the law, not prescribing how the legislature should conduct its affairs.
In his appeal, Akpabio seeks a comprehensive reversal of the Federal High Court’s judgment. He requests the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s decision, strike out the duplicated reliefs in Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s applications, and dismiss her suit for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, he asks the Court of Appeal to reject the Federal High Court’s recommendations regarding the Senate’s internal processes, emphasizing the principle of separation of powers and the legislature’s autonomy. Akpabio additionally urges the appellate court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to resolve his preliminary objection and dismiss the case entirely, arguing that the lower court fundamentally erred in assuming jurisdiction over a matter that falls within the exclusive purview of the Senate. This appeal underscores the complex interplay between the legislative and judicial branches of government and the ongoing debate over the limits of judicial intervention in legislative affairs. The outcome of this appeal will undoubtedly have significant implications for the relationship between these two branches of government and the interpretation of relevant constitutional provisions regarding their respective powers and jurisdictions.
