77
he Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has filed a discover of attraction to problem the judgement of the Federal Excessive Court docket sitting in Abuja which ordered the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate after her controversial suspension.
The discover of attraction, obtained by THE BUREAU NEWSPAPER on Monday, is dated July 14, 2025, and was filed on the Court docket of Enchantment, Abuja Judicial Division.
The attraction, marked CA/A//2025, stems from go well with quantity FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, which was instituted by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to contest her suspension from the Pink Chamber.
Within the discover of attraction, Akpabio is interesting on 11 grounds and asking the appellate courtroom to put aside the judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal Excessive Court docket.
The courtroom had ordered the Senate to recall Akpoti-Uduaghan, describing her six-month suspension as extreme and missing authorized justification.
Akpabio, by way of his authorized staff, argues that the Federal Excessive Court docket erred in regulation when it assumed jurisdiction over a matter which, in accordance with him, pertains to the interior workings of the Nationwide Meeting and subsequently falls exterior the courtroom’s jurisdiction as prescribed by Part 251 of the 1999 Structure of Nigeria.
He contends that the Federal Excessive Court docket has no powers to adjudicate on issues in regards to the existence or extent of the authorized rights and privileges of a member of the Nationwide Meeting.
Within the discover of attraction, Akpabio listed a number of elements of the Excessive Court docket’s ruling which he’s dissatisfied with.
He particularly challenges the courtroom’s dismissal of his preliminary objection, its pronouncement on the validity and period of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, and its suggestion that the Senate ought to recall her to renew her duties.
Akpabio’s grounds of attraction embody the argument that the trial choose occasioned a miscarriage of justice by assuming jurisdiction over Akpoti-Uduaghan’s go well with, which was filed prematurely and in contravention of the Senate’s inner dispute decision mechanisms as stipulated within the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended).
He additional insists that the matter ought to have been resolved internally by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions earlier than Akpoti-Uduaghan approached the courtroom.
The Senate President additionally argues that the decrease courtroom failed to use the provisions of the Legislative Homes (Powers and Privileges) Act, which defend legislative proceedings from judicial scrutiny.
He acknowledged that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s grievance arose from phrases spoken throughout a plenary session and from resolutions handed by the Senate, each of that are protected below the Act.
He accuses the Federal Excessive Court docket of breaching his proper to truthful listening to by elevating points suo motu which had been neither pleaded by any occasion nor canvassed in the course of the proceedings.
Particularly, he contends that the trial choose improperly launched the query of whether or not the six-month suspension imposed on Akpoti-Uduaghan was extreme and went forward to make a suggestion for her recall with out listening to from the events on the matter.
In accordance with the discover of attraction, Akpabio’s authorized staff argues that the decrease courtroom erred when it dominated on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s interlocutory utility by merging the reliefs sought therein with these in her substantive originating summons, regardless of the duplication of reliefs in each functions.
He additionally claims that the courtroom acted improperly by continuing to listen to and decide the substantive go well with regardless of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s violation of the courtroom’s earlier order restraining events from making public feedback on the matter.
Along with these claims, Akpabio argues that the Federal Excessive Court docket lacked jurisdiction to entertain the go well with as a result of Akpoti-Uduaghan did not adjust to the statutory requirement below Part 21 of the Legislative Homes (Powers and Privileges) Act, which mandates any individual with a explanation for motion in opposition to a legislative home to serve a three-month written discover on the Clerk of the Nationwide Meeting disclosing the reason for motion and the reliefs sought.
Within the reliefs sought earlier than the Court docket of Enchantment, Akpabio is praying for an order permitting the attraction and setting apart the elements of the judgement the place the decrease courtroom dismissed his preliminary objection, held that the six-month suspension was extreme, and beneficial that the Senate ought to recall Akpoti-Uduaghan.
He’s additionally in search of an order putting out what he described as duplicated reliefs in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s functions for interlocutory injunction, necessary injunction and originating summons. Moreover, Akpabio is asking the Court docket of Enchantment to invoke its powers below Part 15 of the Court docket of Enchantment Act to dismiss Akpoti-Uduaghan’s go well with for lack of jurisdiction.
Within the discover of attraction, Akpabio’s authorized staff argues that the trial courtroom went past its constitutional powers by providing what they describe as “advisory opinions” to the Senate on the way it ought to deal with the recall of a suspended member. They insist that the courtroom lacked jurisdiction to intrude within the inner affairs of the Senate or to suggest amendments to the Senate Standing Orders.
Akpabio’s reduction sought, as contained, within the courtroom doc reads:
“i) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court docket permitting this cross-appeal.
“ii) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court docket setting apart the elements of the choice of the decrease Court docket the place the decrease courtroom dismissed the Appellant’s preliminary objection, and opined that (i) the 6 month suspension of the 1* Respondent was extreme and (ii) it believed that the third Respondent ought to recall the 1 Respondent to the Senate.
“iii) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court docket putting out duplicated reliefs contained within the 1ª Respondent’s utility for interlocutory injunction, utility for necessary injunction and originating summons.
“iv) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court docket invoking the powers of this Honourable Court docket below Part 15 of the Court docket of Enchantment Act to find out the Appellant’s discover of preliminary objection and dismiss the first Respondent’s go well with on the decrease Court docket for need of jurisdiction.
“v) ANY OTHER ORDERS the Court docket might deem match to grant within the curiosity of justice.”
Put up Views: 201
