Finally, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Own Appeal Confirms: No Order Mandated Senate to Recall Her

The recent filing of a Notice of Appeal by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team has now vindicated my position and that of all those who have maintained that the judgment of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako did not contain a mandatory order directing the Senate to recall her before the expiration of her six-month suspension.

In the Notice of Appeal, which contains thirty grounds and seeks to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, Ground 23 is particularly striking and revealing. It reads:

> “The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and abdicated her judicial duty when Her Ladyship, after rightly adjudging the Appellant’s suspension by the 2nd Respondent for a period of six months as excessive, outside the contemplation of the Constitution and the enabling Act, as well as ultra vires Section 63 of the Constitution, failed to expressly make a clear pronouncement setting aside and/or nullifying same accordingly.”

The particulars of this ground further assert:

1. The trial judge found the suspension excessive and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution;

2. Nevertheless, the judge merely believed that the Senate should recall the appellant;

3. The language employed did not constitute an express or binding nullification of the suspension;

4. The absence of a clear and direct order created confusion, as reflected in the enrolled order;

5. The judge’s failure to nullify the suspension expressly has led to multiple interpretations.

This single ground of appeal confirms what we have consistently argued: there was no binding, enforceable order mandating Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s return to the Senate before her suspension elapsed. If such an order existed, there would have been no need to appeal this specific point.

The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in exercising its disciplinary powers, acted within the limits of its constitutional and statutory authority. It did not breach any law or violate any rights in sanctioning a member whose conduct on the floor was unworthy of parliamentary decorum. The Senate Chamber is not a theatre for disorder, nor should it be a platform for members to hurl discourtesies at the presiding officer or other colleagues.

Furthermore, Senator Natasha’s dramatized attempt to re-enter the Senate complex, accompanied by a hired crowd and media entourage, was nothing short of a carefully staged spectacle aimed at generating online content for her army of bloggers. It was not about justice, it was about virality.

Her actions, unsanctioned, disorderly, and self-aggrandizing, are unbecoming of the office she holds. They constitute not only a flagrant disregard for institutional discipline but also a fresh insult to the very chamber she claims to respect. Indeed, her conduct could merit another round of disciplinary action.

Let discerning Nigerians note this: the judicial process must be respected in its entirety, not selectively exploited for media sympathy. The appeal filed by Senator Natasha herself has exposed the truth and reaffirmed the position that the Senate has acted within the law.

We were right yesterday, and we are right today. The Senate owes no duty to enforce a non-existent order.

Dayo Fdugba, lawyer and Policy Analyst writes from Abuja.