Falana noted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the “Senate has exposed itself to unwarranted ridicule by filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the advice of the Federal High Court.”

Fiery human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, has stated that it is unconstitutional for the Nigerian Senate to refuse to comply with the Federal High Court judgment which declared the six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan excessive and unconstitutional.

Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, in a judgement delivered on July 4, 2025, ruled that the suspension of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, in a legislative calendar that only requires 181 sitting days, effectively silences a whole constituency and undermines democratic representation.

Consequently, the judge had recommended to the Senate to recall her.

But in contempt of the Court, the Senate claimed 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.”

In his reaction, Falana noted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the “Senate has exposed itself to unwarranted ridicule by filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the advice of the Federal High Court.”

Falana wrote, “In a judgement delivered on July 4, 2025, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court declared that the 6-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is excessive and unconstitutional. The judge equally noted that suspending a senator for six months, in a legislative calendar that only requires 181 sitting days, effectively silences a whole constituency and undermines democratic representation. Consequently, the Judge recommended to the Senate to recall her.

“But in utter contempt of the decision of the Federal High Court, the Senate has stated categorically 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.”

“It is pertinent to state that since the learned trial judge made a determination that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension is excessive and unconstitutional, the consequential recommendation of the court is binding on the members of the Senate. The attention of the Senate ought to be drawn to section 318 of the Constitution states that “decision means, in relation to a court, any determination of that court and includes judgement, decree, order, conviction, sentence or recommendation.”

“In the case of the Peoples Redemption Party (Prp) V Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors (2018) LPELR – 44328, Ogbuiya JCA (as he then was) held thus:

“A decision of a court means ‘in relation to a court, any determination of that court and includes judgment, decree, order, conviction, sentence or recommendation’, see section 318 of the Constitution, as amended, Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 293; Kubor v. Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534; Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205. The operative word “determination”, an uncountable noun, which is not defined in section 318 of the Constitution, as amended, connotes ‘the settling of a controversy by a judicial decision; a coming to a decision’”. see Omisore v. Aregbesola (supra).”

“Since Justice Nyako has settled the controversy over the legal validity of the 6-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by a judicial decision and advised the Senate to recall her without any conditionality, there can be no justification for treating the valid and subsisting decision of the Federal High Court with disdain. Therefore, the Senate is under a legal duty to recall the Senator in accordance with section 287(3) of the Constitution which stipulates as follows:

“The decisions of the Federal High Court, a High Court and of all other courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, a High Court and those other courts, respectively.”

“Finally, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Senate has exposed itself to unwarranted ridicule by filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the advice of the Federal High Court. What is the legal basis for challenging a decision of the Federal High Court that is not binding on the Senate? Or why is the Senate praying the Court of Appeal to quash and set aside the said advice?”  

Source: SAHARA REPORTERS