The Federal High Court Abuja has released the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment order by Justice Binta Nyako in the Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 between suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Nigerian Senate.
With the release of the CTC, the controversies surrounding the recall of the Senator back to the red chambers have now become settled, as the reinstatement was pegged by the judge as an opinion and not an order as earlier debated by Nigerians.
Part of the judgment order reads as follows:
1. That all previous Orders and all pending applications before this Court became seized of the matter are hereby set aside except the Originating Summons, preliminary objections and motion for interlocutory injunction which will be taken together.
2. That having found that the Plaintiff acted in breach of this court’s subsisting order, the Plaintiff must take responsibility for her action and remedy same. Thus, an order is hereby made for the Plaintiff to pay a fine in the sum of N5 Million to the Federal Government Treasury and to publish a public apology to the court in two (2) National Dailies and on her Facebook page within 7 days of today to purge herself of the contempt.
3. That the preliminary objection succeeds in part in that some aspects of the cause of actions may be inchoate but in enforcement of fundamental rights an act can lie where the infringement is in anticipation – is being, has been or is likely to be breached.
4. That the application for interlocutory injunction filed, which reliefs are similar to those in the Originating Summon are hereby subsumed into the Originating Summons and shall be determined together.
5. That reliefs 1, 2, and 3 calls for the interpretations of Order 9, 10 and 11 of the Senate Rules that touches on the privileges inuring to a Senator.
6. 6. That a Senator can only raise issues of privilege upon complying with the provision of Chapter 3 Order 6 of the Senate Rules.
7. That I also find that the Senate Rules is superior to the Legislative House (Powers & Privileges) Act by virtue of Section 20 thereof.
8. That Order 6 of the Senate Rules gives the power to allocate and re-allocate seats to Senators to the Senate President without conditions.
9. That reliefs 4 and 5 bordering on the actions or non-actions of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, I find that for as long as the Senator (Plaintiff) is not speaking from the seat allocated to her, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents cannot and should not take any steps in the Plaintiff’s matter as the Plaintiff has not complied with the Senate Rules which govern her as well.
10. That to suspend a member for a period of 6 months equals to a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people. That I find this excessive and over reaching noting that it will prevent a member from complying with Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution.
11. That I am of the opinion that the senate has the power to review the provisions of the Senate Rules and can even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act both for being excessive and over reaching.
12. That the Senate has the power to and I believe should recall the Plaintiff and allow her to resume representing the people who sent her there to represent them.
