Legal representatives of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan have formally advised the National Assembly to fully comply with a recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which ordered her reinstatement to the Senate after her suspension was declared unlawful.
In a detailed rejoinder dated July 14, 2025, addressed to the Director of Litigation and Counselling in the Legal Services Directorate of the National Assembly, lead counsel Michael Jonathan Numa, SAN, urged the legislative body to interpret and implement the court’s judgment as binding in its entirety.
The clarification followed the decision of the court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, which pitted Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan against the Clerk of the National Assembly and three others.
Referencing the enrolled order issued by the court, Numa pointed out that it contained a total of twelve directives. The twelfth directive, which states that “the Senate should recall the Plaintiff,” may at first glance appear advisory due to the wording. However, the legal team argued that when the judgment is read holistically—particularly in the context of the other binding orders—it becomes clear that this directive was intended to carry the force of law.
The counsel emphasized that the ruling did not just touch on procedural matters but addressed the substantive legal issues surrounding the senator’s suspension. Specifically, the court had nullified the findings and recommendations of the Senate Committee that led to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, describing them as inconsistent with both constitutional provisions and the Senate’s own Standing Orders.
In reinforcing their position, the legal team drew from Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which imposes a binding obligation on all authorities and persons to enforce decisions of courts. They also cited Section 318, which defines a court decision broadly to include not only judgments but also decrees, orders, recommendations, and other forms of ruling.
To bolster their argument, the lawyers referenced the 2025 Supreme Court case Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd v. Tempo Energy (Nig.) Ltd, where it was affirmed that recommendations in court rulings can, under certain circumstances, be interpreted as carrying binding authority.
The team urged the legal department of the National Assembly to reconsider any interpretation of the ruling that downplays its enforceability and to offer the Senate appropriate legal counsel in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
They also made it known that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan intends to return to legislative duties on July 22, 2025—a symbolic date in light of recent national events, including the passing of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
The counsel warned, however, that should there be any form of non-compliance or delay, the senator may be compelled to explore further legal avenues to ensure that the court’s decision is fully enforced.
The letter concluded with a firm reminder that compliance with court orders is not optional but a constitutional obligation that must be fulfilled by every arm of government, including the legislature.
What you should know
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal counsel has insisted that the Federal High Court ruling ordering her recall to the Senate is binding, despite the use of the word “should” in one of the directives.
The court nullified the Senate’s suspension of the senator, and her lawyers argue that the National Assembly is constitutionally obligated to implement the judgment.
