The legal counsel to Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has issued a strong rejoinder to the National Assembly’s Legal Directorate, insisting that the Senate has no discretion in complying with the Federal High Court judgement, which ordered her immediate recall following her controversial suspension.
In a letter dated July 14, 2025, and addressed to the Director of Litigation and Counselling, Charles Yoila, the legal team led by Michael Jonathan Numa, SAN, rejected the interpretation that the court’s judgement was advisory or non-binding.
“The judgement conveys clear binding judicial determinations… compliance is not subject to further deliberation or discretion by the Senate,” the letter read.
At the heart of the legal argument is Order 12 of the court’s enrolled judgement, which states that “the Senate should recall the Plaintiff.” While the Senate’s legal team reportedly views the word “should” as non-compulsory, Akpoti’s lawyers argue that the context, structure, and intent of the order make it constitutionally binding.
Citing legal precedent and constitutional provisions, the lawyers pointed to Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which compels the National Assembly to enforce court decisions, and Section 318, which defines a court’s “decision” to include recommendations arising from adjudicated issues.
“The court adjudged the Plaintiff’s suspension as excessive and unconstitutional,” the lawyers wrote, referencing Order 10 of the judgment. “That action is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.”
The legal team further referenced the case of Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd v. Tempo Energy (Nig.) Ltd (2025), to reinforce that even a recommendation from a court, if rooted in contested proceedings, amounts to a binding directive.
Additionally, the letter noted that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan intends to resume her legislative duties on July 22, 2025. It warned that she would pursue all lawful options should the Senate fail to act in line with the court’s judgement.
The Senate had earlier argued that the ruling did not compel any specific action, but Akpoti’s lawyers described that stance as a distortion of judicial meaning, urging the Senate’s legal advisers to revisit the enrolled order “in fidelity to the Rule of Law.”
The standoff follows Akpoti’s suspension earlier this year over a report by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions—a decision her team claims was unconstitutional and carried out during the pendency of a legal challenge.
The political implications of this legal dispute may deepen if the Senate fails to comply, potentially setting the stage for a showdown between the judiciary and legislature over the limits of parliamentary privilege and constitutional supremacy.
