Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed a notice of appeal against the Federal High Court ruling that ordered the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, describing the decision as a judicial overreach into legislative affairs.
The appeal, dated July 14, 2025, and filed at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal (CA/A//2025), stems from suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, originally instituted by Akpoti-Uduaghan to challenge her six-month suspension from the Senate.
Akpabio is challenging the July 4 ruling by Justice Binta Nyako, which declared the suspension “excessive and legally unjustified.” His legal team listed 11 grounds of appeal, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and wrongly assumed authority over internal legislative matters, in violation of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
At the core of Akpabio’s appeal is the contention that the judiciary should not interfere in matters relating to the conduct and discipline of Senate members – issues he insists fall strictly under the Senate’s internal rules and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.
He further argued that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case was premature, as she failed to exhaust the Senate’s internal resolution mechanisms via its Ethics and Privileges Committee before heading to court. Akpabio’s appeal also criticizes the trial court for raising and ruling on issues not brought forward by any party, thereby denying him a fair hearing.
Among the reliefs sought, the Senate President is asking the appellate court to:
Set aside the trial court’s decision, including its dismissal of his preliminary objection.
Strike out what he describes as duplicated reliefs in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s applications.
Dismiss the suit entirely for lack of jurisdiction, invoking Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act.
Akpabio maintains that statements made during Senate plenary and decisions passed therein are constitutionally protected and not subject to court interference. He insists the court acted outside its powers by recommending how the Senate should handle the recall of a suspended member and offering what he describes as “advisory opinions.”
