Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has notified the Senate of her plans to return to the Senate on July 22, insisting that the judgment of the Federal High Court in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 is not subject to further deliberation or discretion of the Senate.
The Federal High Court on July 4 described Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension as excessive and asked the Senate to recall her to continue representing her constituents.
The Senate however claimed the court’s ruling was mere advisory, not an order for her recall.
The position of the Senate was conveyed by the Clerk of the National Assembly in response to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s planned resumption on July 14. But the Senate adjourned plenary to July 22 following the death of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
Akpoti-Uduaghan has now notified the clerk of her plans to resume on July 22, clarifying that the judgment of the court was not subject to further deliberations or discretion.
The letter, signed by her legal counsel, Michael Jonathan Numa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, reads: “We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 14th July 2025, referenced as above, and appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
“However, with the utmost respect, we must disagree with your interpretation of the enrolled Judgment Order. Specifically, we contest the view that the Court’s pronouncement in the referenced matter constitutes a mere advisory opinion rather than a binding directive requiring the Senate to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
“It is important to note that the preamble of the enrolled order begins with the words “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,” and proceeds to enumerate twelve distinct and substantive orders issued by the Court.
“Of particular relevance is Order 12, which states in part: “the Senate should recall the Plaintiff.” While the term “should” is employed instead of “shall,” the overall context and structure of the enrolled judgment order, when read in its entirety, clearly support a mandatory interpretation of that directive.
“It is also pertinent to highlight that Reliefs 5 and 6 of the originating summons specifically sought orders nullifying any decision, finding, or recommendation concerning the discipline of the Plaintiff by the 4th Defendant; the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions which culminated into our Client’s suspension during the pendency of the matter. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s application for a mandatory injunction heard concurrently with the substantive originating summons and incorporated into the court’s composite judgment (notably in Order 4) explicitly sought to set aside the suspension done during the pendency of suit, and on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the Senate Standing Order 2023, in line with binding judicial precedent.
“The legality of the suspension was vigorously contested by all parties. during the proceedings, as evidenced in the processes filed, exchanged and arguments adopted in open court.
“The judgment conveys clear binding judicial determinations within the meaning of Section 318 of the Constitution, which defines a “decision” of a court to include “judgment, decree, order, conviction, sentence or recommendation.”
“Pursuant to this provision, a recommendation when arising from adjudicated and contested issues as in this case constitutes a binding judicial act. See Ecobank (Nig) Ltd v. Tempo Energy (Nig) Ltd (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) Pg. 125 at 144-145, paras. E-A.
“The Court having adjudged the Plaintiff’s suspension to be excessive and inconsistent with the provision of Section 63 of the Constitution (notably in Order 10), the legal implication, by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Constitution is to the effect that such action is null and void to the extent of that inconsistency.
“Accordingly, under Section 287(3) of the Constitution, the Senate is bound to enforce and give effect to the decision of the Court. Compliance with the judgment is not subject to further deliberation or discretion by the Senate.
“In light of the foregoing, we respectfully urge you to revisit the enrolled order and advise the Senate to comply accordingly.
“Finally, following the unfortunate demise of President Muhammadu Buhari, GCON, our client intends to resume her legislative duties on the 22nd day of July, 2025.
“We trust you will act promptly in fidelity to the Rule of Law, and in deference to the Constitution and the binding pronouncement of the Court. Our client reserves the right to pursue all lawful measures to enforce her rights should this demand continue to be disregarded and violated.
“Please, accept the assurances of our highest professional regard.”
VANGUARD
