NASS writes Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, insists court didn’t order her reinstatement

The National Assembly has informed the legal counsel to Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan that the judgement of the Federal High Court did not issue any binding directive her immediate reinstatement to the Senate.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

In a letter dated 14 July and addressed to her legal counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, the National Assembly stated that no court order exists compelling the Senate or its leadership to reinstate the suspended senator.

The letter, signed by Charles Yoila, director of Litigation and Counselling at the National Assembly, was written on behalf of the Clerk to the National Assembly (CNA).

The response came after Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan notified the National Assembly through her lawyer, of her intention to resume legislative duties on Tuesday, 15 July, urging the Senate leadership to treat her notice as urgent and in line with the court judgement to avoid contempt proceedings.

However, the National Assembly management maintained that the judgement by Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court was merely advisory not an enforceable order.

“For our summary of the judgement order, there is no order made on the 4th day of July, 2025 by Hon. Justice B.F.N. Nyako for the Senate, President of the Senate or National Assembly to comply with. The declaratory judgment merely advised the Defendants to exercise their power to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and allow her to resume representing the people who sent her to represent them.”

The National Assembly, therefore, urged the senator’s legal team to exercise patience and await a final decision from the Senate.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

“Accordingly, you may wish to advise your client to await the action of the Senate to exercise their power of recall as advised by the court and in terms with the judgement of the Honourable Court, please.”

The Clerk’s stance reinforces the position earlier expressed by the Senate spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu, who on Sunday stated that the Certified True Copy of the court’s Enrolled Order did not include any declaratory or injunctive pronouncement compelling the Senate to reinstate Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan.

What the court ruling actually says

The judge, Mrs Nyako delivered a judgment in the senator’s favour, saying that suspending an elected lawmaker for six months effectively denies a constituency its right to representation.

However, the judgement stopped short of ordering her immediate recall. She offered an advisory opinion urging the Senate to reconsider the suspension but did not issue a binding directive enforcing her reinstatement.

In a separate aspect of the judgement, the court found Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of civil contempt over a satirical post she made on social media, which the court believed was disrespectful to its proceedings.

Instead of sentencing her to prison, the judge imposed a N5 million fine and ordered her to publish a public apology in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page within seven days. She has since appealed this aspect of the judgement.

Legal analysts have noted that the judgement highlights the complex balance between judicial oversight and legislative independence. While courts can review legislative conduct to ensure constitutional compliance, they are generally reluctant to interfere directly in parliamentary procedures.

Akpabio appeals judgement

Meanwhile, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio has filed a cross-appeal at the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the judgement.

In the notice of cross-appeal dated 11 July, Mr Akpabio, through his counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, argued that the Federal High Court erred in law and committed a miscarriage of justice by ruling against the Senate.

READ ALSO: Why Senate can’t reinstate Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan yet, despite court ruling – Spokesperson

The appeal, which raises eleven grounds, challenged both the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the substantive ruling itself.

Mr Akpabio argued that the court lacked the authority to intervene in the Senate’s disciplinary process, especially as the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petitions had not completed its investigation at the time the suit was instituted.

He further contended that Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms available under the Senate Standing Orders before approaching the court, rendering the case premature.