The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has filed a notice of appeal challenging the judgment of Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which ordered the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate following her controversial suspension.

The notice of appeal, dated July 14, 2025, and filed at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, is based on 11 grounds. Akpabio is asking the appellate court to set aside the July 4, 2025 judgment of the trial court.

The appeal, marked CA/A//2025, arises from suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to challenge her suspension from the Senate after a dispute over seat arrangements.

The trial court had ruled in her favour, ordering the Senate to recall her, describing the six-month suspension as excessive and without legal justification.

Through his legal team, Akpabio argued that the Federal High Court erred in law by assuming jurisdiction over a matter he claims pertains to the internal workings of the National Assembly, and therefore falls outside the court’s jurisdiction as outlined in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.

He contends that the court has no authority to adjudicate issues relating to the legal rights and privileges of members of the National Assembly.

In the notice of appeal, Akpabio outlined several aspects of the ruling he found objectionable, particularly the court’s dismissal of his preliminary objection, its ruling on the validity and duration of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, and its recommendation that she be recalled.

Among the grounds of appeal, Akpabio argued that the trial judge caused a miscarriage of justice by assuming jurisdiction over a matter that, according to him, was prematurely filed and violated the Senate’s internal dispute resolution procedures, as specified in the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended).

He further argued that the issue should have been resolved internally by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions before being brought before the court.

Akpabio also faulted the trial court for failing to apply the provisions of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which protects legislative proceedings from judicial interference. He claimed that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s grievances stemmed from words spoken during plenary and Senate resolutions, both of which are protected under the Act.

ALSO READ: Ekiti govt issues advisory on diphtheria prevention

He accused the Federal High Court of violating his right to a fair hearing by raising issues suo motu—on its own initiative—which were neither pleaded nor argued by the parties. Specifically, he contends that the judge improperly introduced the question of whether the six-month suspension was excessive and issued an order for her recall without hearing submissions from either side.

Additionally, Akpabio’s legal team argued that the court erred by ruling on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory application and merging its reliefs with those in her substantive originating summons, despite the duplication of reliefs.

He also claimed that the court acted improperly by proceeding to hear the substantive suit even though Akpoti-Uduaghan allegedly violated an earlier order restraining public commentary on the matter.

Furthermore, Akpabio argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Akpoti-Uduaghan failed to comply with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, which requires a three-month written notice to be served on the Clerk of the National Assembly before instituting any legal action against a legislative house.

In his reliefs before the Court of Appeal, Akpabio is seeking an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the parts of the judgment that dismissed his preliminary objection, declared the suspension excessive, and ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recall.

He is also asking the appellate court to strike out what he described as duplicated reliefs in her applications for interlocutory injunction, mandatory injunction, and originating summons. Furthermore, he is urging the court to invoke its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to dismiss Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit entirely for lack of jurisdiction.

Akpabio’s legal team further argued that the trial court exceeded its constitutional authority by offering what they called “advisory opinions” on how the Senate should handle the recall of a suspended member. They maintain that the court lacks jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of the Senate or to recommend changes to its Standing Orders.