Senate President Godswill Akpabio has appealed a ruling of the Federal High Court ordering the Senate to lift the suspension imposed on Kogi Central lawmaker, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Information gathered revealed that the notice of appeal, dated July 14, 2025, was filed at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division.
The Senate President is challenging the July 4 judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako, which described the six-month suspension of Akpoti-Uduaghan as overreaching and in violation of her constituents’ right to representation.
Justice Nyako, while acknowledging the Senate’s constitutional authority to discipline its members, ruled that the length and nature of Natasha’s suspension were excessive.
The court also slammed a ₦5 million fine on the senator for contempt, citing a satirical Facebook post made during the proceedings that allegedly breached an earlier restraining order.
Responding, Natasha has filed her own appeal, challenging the contempt ruling on jurisdictional grounds.
The embattled lawmaker argued that the trial court does not have the authority to entertain a contempt charge based on conduct that occurred ex facie curiae, that is, outside the courtroom.
Meanwhile, Akpabio’s legal team, in a cross-appeal, has also opposed the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that the matter involves internal parliamentary affairs, which are beyond judicial scrutiny under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The Senate President, in his 11-ground appeal, faulted the trial court for dismissing his preliminary objection and making pronouncements that, in his view, intrude on the legislative autonomy guaranteed under the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.
Akpabio argued that parliamentary procedures, including suspensions, utterances during plenary, and Senate resolutions, are shielded from judicial interference.
The appeal further argued that Natasha’s suit was premature, as it failed to exhaust internal mechanisms, notably the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, as required by the Senate Standing Orders (2023, as amended).
Akpabio also accused the trial judge of denying him a fair hearing by raising and deciding on issues, such as whether the suspension was excessive, that neither party canvassed. He described this as a breach of judicial neutrality.
In addition, the appeal criticised the court for merging interlocutory reliefs with substantive claims, a move Akpabio’s lawyers said violated legal procedure.
They also argued that the suit should have been struck out for failure to comply with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Act, which mandates a three-month pre-action notice to the Clerk of the National Assembly before instituting legal proceedings.
Akpabio is asking the appellate court to allow his appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, and affirm the Senate’s disciplinary action against Akpoti-Uduaghan.
