Natasha’s Lawyer Cautions Senate Against Disobeying Court Order
Natasha’s Lawyer Cautions Senate Against Disobeying Court Order
.
Michael Numa (SAN), legal representative of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, has urged the National Assembly to comply fully with the recent Federal High Court ruling ordering her reinstatement.
On July 4, 2025, the Federal High Court in Abuja directed the Senate to reinstate Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was suspended on March 6, 2025, by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions.
In her ruling, Justice Binta Nyako described the six-month suspension—reportedly imposed for addressing the Senate while not seated in her designated seat—as excessive and unjustified.
The court held that the suspension unfairly denied the people of Kogi Central their right to representation and deprived them of the benefits of their elected senator’s legislative contributions. Justice Nyako, therefore, called on the Senate to reinstate her to her position without further delay.
However, the Senate President has appealed the trial court’s decision, and the Senate has denied Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan the opportunity to resume.
In a rejoinder dated July 14, 2025, addressed to the Director of Litigation and Counselling, Legal Services Directorate of the National Assembly, Mr Charles Yoila, Numa clarified the court’s ruling in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 – Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly & 3 Ors.
The senior lawyer referenced the court’s enrolled order, which begins with “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED” and sets out twelve directives.
Michael Numa (SAN) emphasized that although Order 12 states that “the Senate should recall the Plaintiff,” the word “should” must be understood within the context of a binding court judgment when considered in its entirety.
Numa explained that the court’s ruling addressed both the substantive matter and a request for a mandatory injunction, effectively nullifying the Senate Committee’s recommendations and findings that led to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension. The judgment determined that the suspension violated constitutional provisions as well as the Senate’s Standing Orders.
He referenced Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which requires all individuals and authorities to comply with decisions of competent courts. Additionally, he cited Section 318 of the Constitution, which defines a court decision to include a “judgment, decree, order, conviction, sentence or recommendation.”
Supporting this position, the legal team also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd v. Tempo Energy (Nig.) Ltd (2025), which affirmed that certain judicial recommendations may carry binding force.
Numa urged the National Assembly’s Legal Directorate to carefully examine the judgment and provide appropriate guidance to the Senate, underscoring that adherence to court orders is a constitutional obligation.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has announced her plan to resume her legislative duties on July 22, 2025. The legal team further indicated that she may pursue additional legal action if necessary to ensure enforcement of the judgment.
