Summary
The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday held back its judgment in both the appeal and cross-appeals filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
Akpoti-Uduaghan is contesting an earlier decision by a Federal High Court in the case she filed to halt the Senate’s investigation into allegations of misconduct against her.
A three-member panel of justices reserved its decision after lawyers representing both parties adopted their written submissions and argued for and against the issues raised in the appeals.
Akpabio had approached the appellate court to overturn the Federal High Court ruling that nullified the six-month suspension placed on the Kogi Central senator. His legal team insisted that the lower court lacked the authority to rule on the matter because it concerned the internal affairs of the National Assembly—an area they argued is shielded from court interference under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The lower court had earlier held that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension was unconstitutional, excessive, and unfair to the voters she represents.
In a cross-appeal dated July 11, Akpabio, represented by his lead counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, asked the appellate court to void the judgment entirely, describing it as a legal error and “a gross miscarriage of justice.” He argued across 11 grounds that the trial court wrongly dismissed his objections and issued orders that interfered with parliamentary processes, which he said are protected by law.
He also maintained that issues relating to a lawmaker’s suspension, comments made during plenary sittings, and Senate resolutions properly fall under the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and should not be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Akpabio’s cross-appeal was filed two days after Akpoti-Uduaghan lodged her own appeal challenging the N5 million fine imposed on her by the trial court in a contempt ruling delivered by Justice Binta Nyako. The contempt decision involved a satirical Facebook post she made while her case against the Senate was still pending.
In her six-ground appeal, Akpoti-Uduaghan argued that the ruling infringed on her fundamental rights and insisted the fine had no legal basis.
The appeals—CA/ABJ/CJ/739/2025, CA/ABJ/CJ/1208/2025 and CA/ABJ/CJ/739/2025CA/A//2025—stem from her original rights enforcement suit with number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, filed to stop the Senate from probing her.
During Friday’s proceedings, Akpabio, through his counsel Eko Ejembi Eko, SAN, withdrew one of the cross-appeals, noting that it had been overtaken by events since Akpoti-Uduaghan had already returned to her seat in the Senate. The court subsequently dismissed the withdrawn appeal.
What You Should Know
This ongoing legal dispute centers on whether the courts can intervene in internal parliamentary actions, especially regarding the suspension of lawmakers.
While Akpoti-Uduaghan seeks to overturn penalties she considers unconstitutional, Akpabio argues that parliamentary privileges protect such decisions from judicial review.
The appellate court’s reserved judgment will ultimately determine the boundaries of legislative immunity and lawmakers’ fundamental rights.
