ABUJA — A new development has emerged in the controversy surrounding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension from the Senate, as her recently filed Notice of Appeal has been cited as confirmation that no court order directed the Senate to reinstate her before the expiration of her six-month suspension.
Reacting to the development, Abuja-based lawyer and policy analyst, Dayo Fadugba, said the appeal filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team validates the position that the judgment of Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court did not contain any mandatory or enforceable order requiring the Senate to recall the suspended lawmaker.
- According to Fadugba, Ground 23 of the 30-ground appeal confirms that the trial judge did not nullify the suspension but merely observed that it was excessive and outside constitutional contemplation.
The appeal, according to him, reads in part: “The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and abdicated her judicial duty when Her Ladyship, after rightly adjudging the Appellant’s suspension… as excessive… failed to expressly make a clear pronouncement setting aside and/or nullifying the same accordingly.”
Fadugba said the absence of a direct court order nullifying the suspension or compelling the Senate to act negates claims that the upper chamber disobeyed a court directive.
“This ground alone confirms there was no enforceable order from the Federal High Court. Had such an order existed, there would be no reason to challenge its absence in an appeal,” he said.
Fadugba maintained that the Senate acted within its powers under Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution by disciplining one of its members and did not violate any court ruling.
He also criticised Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s publicised attempt to return to the National Assembly complex while the suspension was still in effect, describing the move as a staged event lacking legal foundation.
“Her return, flanked by a crowd and media crew, was not backed by law. It was a media stunt and a calculated show of defiance,” he said.
Fadugba warned that the senator’s actions could attract further disciplinary measures, adding that the chamber’s decorum must be protected from what he called “self-aggrandizing displays.”
“The Senate chamber is governed by rules. If every member disregards those rules, then the institution loses its authority. Her conduct could justify another round of sanctions,” Fadugba said.
He cautioned that the judiciary must not be selectively interpreted for political gain, adding that the current appeal highlights the limits of the trial court’s judgment.
“What we have now is clarity. There was no order for recall, and her own legal team has said so. The Senate had no duty to act on an unenforceable suggestion,” he added.
Fadugba called for public focus on the legal facts rather than emotional or partisan narratives, noting that the ongoing appeal before the Court of Appeal would further clarify the issues.
The case, which began with the senator’s suspension for alleged misconduct on the floor of the Senate, has sparked public interest, especially after her attempted return to the chamber in defiance of legislative procedures.
With the appeal now before the appellate court, attention is expected to shift to the legal interpretation of the Senate’s disciplinary powers and the extent of judicial intervention in internal legislative affairs.
