Suspended Kogi-Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has again notified the Senate of her intention to resume work on Tuesday next week, which is July 22.
The lawmaker insists an Abuja Federal High Court’s July 4 judgment in the case she instituted challenging her suspension was declarative and ordered the Senate to recall her.
Her lawyers had earlier last week notified the Senate that Akpoti-Uduaghan would resume on Tuesday, July 15, but as plans were underway, former President Muhammadu Buhari passed on on July 13, forcing the Senate to suspend all legislative activities to July 22.
Akpoti-Uduaghan too, in her latest notification, rescheduled her resumption to July 22, brandishing the said court judgment as the grounds for decision to resume.
Incidentally, the Senate had already taken a firm stance, advising her to steer clear of the National Assembly, as the said Judgment did not make any binding orders on the legislature to admit her before the expiration of the six-month suspension.
Senate’s spokesman, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, giving the position the Senate, had stated, “The Senate wishes to state categorically and for the avoidance of doubt that the Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order did not contain any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.
“The learned judge, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, merely made advisory observations on the length of the suspension, which are not enforceable or binding in law. The enrolled order clearly demonstrates that the Senate’s disciplinary powers under Section 60 of the Constitution remain intact and were not invalidated.
“Nowhere in the judgment did the Court issue a declaratory or injunctive order mandating her recall.
“However, the Senate will consider and deliberate on this judgment and consequently take a constitutionally informed position on the matter and convey the outcome to the affected Senator and the public.
“The Senate remains committed to the principles of constitutional democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law. Subsequently, it will not allow its processes or integrity to be undermined by premature interpretations of ongoing legal proceedings or by misapplications of constitutional provisions.
“In conclusion, there is no legal basis upon which Senator Natasha can resume legislative duties at this time.”
However, her lawyer, Mr Michael Numa (SAN), in the fresh resumption notice, argues that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s rights are being violated by the Senate by refusing to allow her to resume.
The letter noted, “Finally, following the unfortunate demise of President Muhammadu Buhari, GCON, our client intends to resume her legislative duties on the 22nd day of July, 2025.
“We trust you will act promptly in fidelity to the Rule of Law, and in deference to the Constitution and the binding pronouncement of the Court. Our client reserves the right to pursue all lawful measures to enforce her rights should this demand continue to be disregarded and violated.”
Her lawyers faulted the Senate’s position on the decision on the Federal High Court, saying that she was entitled to resume.
They argued, “However, with the utmost respect, we must disagree with your interpretation of the enrolled Judgment Order. Specifically, we contest the view that the Court’s pronouncement in the referenced matter constitutes a mere advisory opinion rather than a binding directive requiring the Senate to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.”
The lawyers cited the opening phrase of the judgment, pointing out that it was written, “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED”, to back their argument, adding that the court also used the word “should” as against “shall” in Order 12, reading the judgment in its entirety.
They observed, “It is important to note that the preamble of the enrolled order begins with the words ‘IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,’ and proceeds to enumerate twelve distinct and substantive orders issued by the Court.
“Of particular relevance is Order 12, which states in part: ‘’The Senate should recall the Plaintiff.’ While the term ‘’should’ is employed instead of ‘shall,’ the overall context and structure of the enrolled judgment order, when read in its entirety, clearly support a mandatory. interpretation of that directive.”
Warning that Akpoti-Uduaghan might be pressured to take every legal means to enforce the judgment, the lawyers also referenced the 1999 Constitution, stating, “Accordingly, under Section 287(3) of the Constitution, the Senate is bound to enforce and give effect to the decision of the Court. Compliance with the judgment is not subject to further deliberation or discretion by the Senate.”
Ironically, the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, had already appealed the the same judgment of the federal high court at the Court of Appeal, challenging primarily, the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the matter in the first place.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended last March for six months for breaching the Senate standing orders, particularly Order 6, which deals with seat allocation in the chamber.
Discussion about this post