₦airaland Forum

Title: Again, the full judgement now out confirms that there was no mandatory order for recall.

Over this Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Senate case, certain media commentaries and legal punditry have suggested, rather inaccurately, that the Federal High Court, Abuja, per Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, made a binding order mandating the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan following her suspension. Having obtained the full judgement from the court yesterday, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the court made more profound statements over the matter than we initially thought.

As a continuation of my earlier publication on this matter having obtained the full judgement, I find it necessary, indeed imperative, to revisit the actual words and reasoning of Justice Nyako in her judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, in Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly & 3 Ors, to lay to rest these persistent misconceptions.

The first and perhaps most important point that must be reiterated is that Justice Binta Nyako made no binding order mandating the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate chamber before the expiration of the six month's suspension. At no point in the judgment did the court issue a declaratory or injunctive order nullifying the suspension or compelling the Senate to reinstate the Senator before the six month's expiration.

Rather, the court made an obiter observation, a judicial aside - that called attention to the proportionality of the suspension vis-à-vis the number of legislative sitting days in a calendar year. The learned judge opined that if a legislative year spans 181 days, a six-month suspension covering 180 days may be excessive and possibly contrary to the spirit of legislative representation. However, such commentary, however persuasive, does not amount to a binding pronouncement or mandatory directive.

What truly constitutes the ratio decidendi, the legal reasoning that binds - of the judgment is the court’s resounding affirmation of the Senate’s constitutional authority to regulate its internal affairs, including disciplining its members, pursuant to Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The court rightly observed that Senator Natasha was referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions for alleged unparliamentary conduct on the floor of the Senate on 20th February, 2025. This referral was made in accordance with the Senate Standing Orders 2023, particularly Orders 13 and 14. Notably, despite being formally invited to defend herself before the Committee, the Senator chose to file a suit in court instead.

The court then reaffirmed the long-standing principle of separation of powers, citing the authoritative decisions in AG of Bendel v. AG Federation & 22 Ors and Unongo v. Aku, to underscore that courts will not interfere in the internal workings of the legislature unless there is a clear constitutional breach or violation of fundamental rights. The court emphasized that such interference would amount to judicial overreach.

Moreover, the judgment referenced the case of Senator Ali Ndume v. President of the Senate & Ors, where the Federal High Court held that the Senate has the power to discipline its members, provided due process and fair hearing are observed. Justice Nyako concluded that the Senate’s invitation to the Plaintiff to appear before its Ethics Committee was a manifestation of procedural fairness, not a breach of it.

Perhaps the most striking pronouncement of the court, which many conveniently ignore, is the declaration that “there exists no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the Defendants contravened a statutory or constitutional provision.” The Senator’s suit was found to be purely an attempt to shield herself from the consequences of parliamentary disciplinary processes under the guise of judicial protection.

In a powerful statement, Justice Nyako concluded that Section 36(1) of the Constitution does not envisage judicial review of every utterance or internal deliberation made during legislative plenary. If courts were to wade into every such matter, "this Honourable Court would know no rest," she rightly remarked.


In light of the above, the public must disregard narratives that portray the judgment as a judicial indictment of the Senate’s disciplinary powers. There was no order of recall, no declaration of the unconstitutionality of the suspension, and certainly no finding that the Senate violated any law.

Justice Binta Nyako did not nullify the suspension. If anything, she reaffirmed the Senate’s authority and the judiciary’s constitutional restraint in matters of internal legislative regulation. Those who argue otherwise do so either out of ignorance or mischief.

The judgment is a powerful testament to constitutionalism, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the sanctity of legislative independence.
I rest my case.


Dayo Fadugba is a lawyer analyst based in Abuja.

Justice Binta Nyako the wayo judge. We remember how she was messing up with the Nnamdi Kanu case.

And our Aunty lietasha claims to be a lawyer. That woman is a disaster

The Nigeria Senate should stop rambling and let the woman resume her legislative duties. The last but one paragraph has set aside "abinitio" every action of the Senate. In the eye of the law Natasha was NEVER suspended. This means that she can sue to prolong her Senate seat or all her remuneration are paid in retrospect.

Mushmush:
And our Aunty lietasha claims to be a lawyer. That woman is a disaster

Kindly learn to read before typing. Your hands should not be faster than your brain, otherwise you are a candidate for 1000 ways to die. Just a piece of advice.

Dalohad:
Justice Binta Nyako the wayo judge. We remember how she was messing up with the Nnamdi Kanu case.

Has Kanu be cleared.to.go? You will soon begin to abuse the new judge handling it now when he sends kanu to prison

Validated:
The Nigeria Senate should stop rambling and let the woman resume her legislative duties. The last but one paragraph has set aside "abinitio" every action of the Senate. In the eye of the law Natasha was NEVER suspended. This means that she can sue to prolong her Senate seat or all her remuneration are paid in retrospect.

Tell Nathasa to hire you to defend her since you seem to know "eye and leg" of the law better than her present team of lawyers. If she doesn't see you to hire, please volunteer yourself to meet her in court to defend her. Which law school or school you graduated from? Were you among those lawyers that "no dey loose case" that Obi hired then, but only crushed by Tinubu lawyers?

Validated:
Kindly learn to read before typing. Your hands should not be faster than your brain, otherwise you are a candidate for 1000 ways to die. Just a piece of advice.

That advice should be for you. Stop being gullible. The bottom line still remains that the judge never gave any order for her reinstatement. So what are you saying?