₦airaland Forum

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has told the NASS Clerk that the court judgement ordering her reinstatement was a binding one, not advisory

The suspended senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the National Assembly, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has countered the Clerk of the National Assembly, over claims the directive of a Federal High Court for her recall from suspension was a mere advisory opinion.

She maintained that the July 4, 2025 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja was not merely advisory but a binding directive requiring her recall.

In the strongly worded letter tagged, “Rejoinder” dated July 14, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team, led by renowned Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Michael Jonathan Numa, contested the interpretation offered by the National Assembly in its earlier correspondence.

Justice Binta Nyako had in a judgment faulted the six months suspension handed down to the Kogi senator by the leadership of the senate for being excessive and robbed her constituents of adequate representation.

She subsequently held that the senate should recall her so that she can effectively represent her people.

Based on the court’s pronouncement Akpoti-Uduaghan had last week written the senate informing of her return to the senate where she has been barred since March 5, 2025.

However, the Clerk of the Senate in a letter dated July 14, informed the suspended senator that the judgment of the court was not mandatory but a mere advisory opinion.

Responding via a letter dated the same day, through her lawyer, Mr. Micheal Numa, SAN, the Kogi senator pointed out the orders of the court were to the effect that the senate recall her immediately and not a mere advice as was claimed by the clerk.

“We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 14, 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”, she stated.

Arguing further, she pointed out that Order 12, stated in part: “the Senate should recall the Plaintiff”, adding that, “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”.

Besides, she submitted the judgment conveyed a clear binding judicial determination 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.”

“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”, she said.

While claiming that under Section 287(3) of the Constitution, the senate is bound to enforce and give effect to the decision of the Court, Akpoti-Uduaghan stressed that, “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”.

Meanwhile, she has informed the court of her intention to resume her legislative duties on July 22, following the adjournment of plenary till that date in honour of former President Muhammadu Buhari, who had died on Sunday in a London hospital.

“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”, the letter added.

Akpoti-Uduaghan had on March 4, dragged the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, Senator Nedamwen Imasuen to court over moves to suspend her for allegedly violating the rules of the Senate.

Justice Obiora Egwatu of the Federal High Court in ruling in an exparte application on March 4, restrained the senate from taking any disciplinary actions against the Kogi senator, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.

But the senate went ahead to suspend Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months following recommendations of its ethics committee.

The subsisting impasse arises from Akpoti-Uduaghan’s controversial suspension in May 2025 on grounds of what the Senate leadership termed “unparliamentary conduct” and “gross misconduct.”

However, critics have widely condemned the move as politically motivated, targeting the senator over her growing influence and outspoken criticism of budget irregularities affecting her constituency.

Following her suspension, Akpoti-Uduaghan filed suit FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 against the Clerk of the National Assembly and others, arguing that her suspension was unconstitutional and deprived the people of Kogi Central of their democratic representation.

In a judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, Justice B.F.N. Nyako acknowledged the implications of the suspension on democratic governance.

While the court did not issue a mandamus to force the Senate to act, it urged the leadership to “recall the Plaintiff” in the spirit of upholding representative democracy.

Despite this, the Senate had refused to act, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio yet to make any public statement on the matter.

Sources within the Red Chamber suggest there is internal disagreement on how to proceed, with factions either pushing for compliance with the court’s moral guidance or resisting on political grounds.

For instance, in an interview with Channels Television last week, the Senator representing Bayelsa West, Seriake Dickson, threw his weight in support of the embattled Kogi Central Senator and urged the Red Chamber to employ political solutions to resolve issues surrounding her suspension.

The senator herself had maintained a measured silence since the judgment, issuing only a short statement on July 5 to thank supporters and reiterate her commitment to serve Kogi Central.

However, her legal team has been unrelenting in its push for her reinstatement.

As the legal and political drama unfolds, analysts say the National Assembly’s handling of the matter could shape public trust in the legislature.

10. That to suspend a member for a period of 6 months equals a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people. That I find this excessive and overreaching noting that it will prevent a member from complying with Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution

11. That I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to review the provisions of the Senate Rules and can even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act both for being excessive and overreaching.

12. That the Senate has the power to, and I believe should, recall the Plaintiff and allow her to resume representing the people who sent her there to represent them.

emkz:
Natasha, try and resume please.

By the way, they asked her to publish an apology in two national dailies and Facebook. She has refused to do so.

Due to her stubbornness, she might spend that six months suspension and even more.

Senate suspended activities to honour Buhari. After that, they'd proceed on their two month vacation.

Natasha is incorrigible. Therein lies her fundamental issue.

Racoon:
The judicial chaos, impunity, anarchy and lawlessness instituted under this APC govt and every institution of govt under it is really an eyesores. Courts judgements are subject to ratification and approval by the govt

TheJustPath:
Your comment completely misses the point. Senator Natasha Akpoti isn’t being “stubborn” — she’s standing on principle. Apologizing for exposing institutional wrongdoing would be nothing short of cowardice. She was elected to represent the people, not to bow to political intimidation or rubber-stamp hypocrisy.

Calling her “incorrigible” because she refuses to play along with a flawed system only proves how uncomfortable some people are with strong, independent women in power. If defending truth and integrity means facing unjust suspension, then so be it. She’s setting a precedent that leadership isn’t about submission — it’s about courage.

Maxymilliano:
https://www.arise.tv/court-judgement-ordering-my-reinstatement-was-binding-not-advisory-says-akpoti-uduaghan/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwLldfdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHj-5YgsD7nzov1kSw1Pa5ll9tU_dJQ59UCB7cRulK244ccnnOHfG-8K0kgVD_aem_4N2qqq1J3uBUTpxVJ1G-0w#google_vignette

Maxymilliano:
https://www.arise.tv/court-judgement-ordering-my-reinstatement-was-binding-not-advisory-says-akpoti-uduaghan/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwLldfdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHj-5YgsD7nzov1kSw1Pa5ll9tU_dJQ59UCB7cRulK244ccnnOHfG-8K0kgVD_aem_4N2qqq1J3uBUTpxVJ1G-0w#google_vignette

Maxymilliano:
https://www.arise.tv/court-judgement-ordering-my-reinstatement-was-binding-not-advisory-says-akpoti-uduaghan/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwLldfdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHj-5YgsD7nzov1kSw1Pa5ll9tU_dJQ59UCB7cRulK244ccnnOHfG-8K0kgVD_aem_4N2qqq1J3uBUTpxVJ1G-0w#google_vignette

ozo13:
court gave a ruling but she wanted the case to drag on in her own wisdom because she sees apologizing as a weakness and sign of defeat. Akpabio in his own wisdom too choose an aspect of the ruling to appeal exact same way Natasha picked an aspect to obey and also another aspect she preferred to appeal. This will drag the case on and the Senate including the female Among them are surely not in her support because of the reckless show of shame she displayed in the hallow chamber and the court didn't also rule in her favor in that show of shame in the Senate. To the issue of sexual allegation, she was in several occasions asked to provide even just one evidence but till now, noting has been provided reason most citizens don't take her serious anymore

JuanDeDios:
Which country judgement ordered Natasha's reinstatement? Lol.

Arabk25:
Federal high court seating in Abuja the countries capital

emkz:
If this is true, how come the order on her contempt is not binding that she appealed it?

According to the CTC released by the court, some points are reproduced below.



What the judge clearly said is that the suspension was excessive. She then advised the senate to utilize their own powers to review and amend the provisions of their own rules which she considered excessive and overreaching.

She finally said she believed the senate has the power to recall the plaintiff, and she believes they should do so. Please where is the specific order there? Let us express it commonsensically: "I believe Peter Obi has the power to amend his position from 2023. For balance, I am of the opinion that Peter Obi should amend his stand and deputize Atiku so that their merger will be optimum". Please is that an order binding on Peter Obi or a friendly advise that Peter Obi is not liable to take?

Natasha, try and resume please.

By the way, they asked her to publish an apology in two national dailies and Facebook. She has refused to do so.

Due to her stubbornness, she might spend that six months suspension and even more.

Senate suspended activities to honour Buhari. After that, they'd proceed on their two month vacation.

Natasha is incorrigible. Therein lies her fundamental issue.

aylipple:
Shebi Senate has appealed the Court's decision just as Senator Natasha also appealed some parts of the Court's decision that didn't sit well with her.

They (Senate and Senator Natasha) should both await the outcomes of their appeals.

C'est fini.

TheJustPath:
Your comment completely misses the point. Senator Natasha Akpoti isn’t being “stubborn” — she’s standing on principle. Apologizing for exposing institutional wrongdoing would be nothing short of cowardice. She was elected to represent the people, not to bow to political intimidation or rubber-stamp hypocrisy.

Calling her “incorrigible” because she refuses to play along with a flawed system only proves how uncomfortable some people are with strong, independent women in power. If defending truth and integrity means facing unjust suspension, then so be it. She’s setting a precedent that leadership isn’t about submission — it’s about courage.

aylipple:
Shebi Senate has appealed the Court's decision just as Senator Natasha also appealed some parts of the Court's decision that didn't sit well with her.

They (Senate and Senator Natasha) should both await the outcomes of their appeals.

C'est fini.

Image123:
Produce the court order and the wording. Perhaps it's different from the one we read. Read 11 and 12 and make your English teacher proud of you.
BTW, she has till tomorrow to tender her public apology as ordered by the court. No. 2