Contrary to widespread reports and legal speculation, the Federal High Court in Abuja did not issue any order compelling the Senate to reinstate Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan following her suspension.
This was revealed on Sunday after the certified true copy of the judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako on July 4, 2025, was made public.
The case, filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan against the Clerk of the National Assembly and three others, had generated significant media buzz, with some reports suggesting that the court had nullified her suspension and ordered her immediate return to the Senate.
However, a detailed examination of the judgment has shown that no such directive was issued.
According to Vanguard, Legal analyst, Dayo Fadugba, who reviewed the full judgment, noted that Justice Nyako “made no binding order nullifying the suspension or directing the Senate to recall Senator Natasha before the expiration of the six-month disciplinary term.”
According to Fadugba, “What the court did offer was a judicial aside, technically referred to as obiter dictum, on the proportionality of the six-month suspension in relation to the number of sitting days in a legislative year. Justice Nyako observed that if the National Assembly sits for an average of 181 days annually, then a 180-day suspension could arguably be excessive. However, she did not translate this observation into a binding legal directive.
“The core of the judgment (the ratio decidendi) reaffirmed the Senate’s constitutional authority to discipline its members under Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution, which allows each chamber of the National Assembly to regulate its internal procedures.
“The judgment emphasised that Senator Natasha was referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions following alleged unparliamentary conduct during plenary on February 20, 2025.
“While the Senator opted to challenge the Senate’s action in court, the judgment made it clear that due process was followed. The court found no evidence that her rights were violated or that the Senate acted outside the bounds of its internal rules or constitutional authority.
“Justice Nyako also invoked the principle of separation of powers, stressing that the judiciary has no business interfering in the internal operations of the legislature unless there is clear evidence of constitutional breach or infringement of fundamental human rights.
“Citing precedents such as AG Bendel v. AG Federation & 22 Ors and Unongo v. Aku, the court underscored the limits of judicial review when it comes to parliamentary proceedings. In the court’s words, “If courts were to wade into every utterance or internal deliberation during legislative plenary, this Honourable Court would know no rest.
“Further reinforcing the Senate’s disciplinary powers, the judgment referenced Senator Ali Ndume v. President of the Senate & Ors, where the Federal High Court previously affirmed that legislative bodies have the power to discipline members, provided procedural fairness is observed.
“In conclusion, Justice Nyako made it abundantly clear that “there exists no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the Defendants contravened a statutory or constitutional provision.
“The court ruled that Senator Natasha’s legal challenge amounted to an attempt to circumvent disciplinary procedures rather than a legitimate constitutional complaint.”
Fadugba further noted that the judgment is a “powerful affirmation of constitutional boundaries”, and that those framing it as a judicial blow to the Senate’s powers are either misinformed or misrepresenting the facts.
He said, “There was no order of recall, no judicial finding that the Senate acted unlawfully, and certainly no interference with the Senate’s internal affairs.”
The ruling reaffirms both the sanctity of legislative autonomy and the limited scope of judicial intervention in the legislative process.