Senior Advocate of Nigeria Oba Maduabuchi has criticized the Federal High Court’s judgment ordering the recall of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, arguing that the court contradicted itself by finding no limits in Senate rules while simultaneously declaring the suspension excessive.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Speaking during a television interview, Maduabuchi highlighted what he described as a glaring inconsistency in Justice Binta Nyako’s judgment.
“The court said there is no limit contained in the rules and regulations of the Senate as to how long you can suspend somebody. That is part of the judgment,” Madabuchi explained. “If there is no limit in the legislation, the court is not a legislator. The business of the court is to interpret the law as it is no matter the hardship it will give anybody.”
The senior advocate questioned the court’s logic in declaring the six-month suspension excessive after acknowledging that no limits exist in the Senate rules.
“You have said it has no limit. It is left completely at the discretion of the senate. Then how can you now introduce a limit and decide that it is excessive? It’s not your business that 6 months is excessive,” he stated.
Maduabuchi argued that the court exceeded its constitutional role by creating limitations that don’t exist in law.
“What did it exceed when you have said it does not have a limit?” he asked, emphasizing that courts should interpret existing law rather than create new standards.
The senior advocate suggested that the proper course of action would have been for the court to recommend legislative amendments rather than impose its own interpretation of what constitutes excessive punishment.
Maduabuchi clarified that the judgment addresses two distinct matters: the suspension issue and the contempt charge for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s satirical apology.
“That one is different from the issue of her suspension,” he explained, noting that the contempt charge requires a specific apology to the Senate, not the court.
When asked about the required apology, Madabuchi confirmed: “You have to apologize to the Senate. Then now in fact now in trying to apologize she begins…” referring to the satirical nature of her previous apology attempt.
Contradicting claims by Senate lawyers that no clear order was given for the senator’s recall, Madabuchi was emphatic about the court’s directive.
“It’s not true. The judge was clear. I said this thing is excessive. The people are being denied representation go back to your work,” he stated.
The senior advocate acknowledged practical difficulties in implementing the judgment, particularly regarding access to the Senate chambers.
“If she comes she must be given access by the sergeant at arms. Who will say no because I’ve not seen the judgment,” Madabuchi explained, noting that while the senator has the right to return, security personnel also have legitimate concerns about implementing orders they haven’t seen.
Addressing the Senate’s position that Akpoti-Uduaghan must apologize before being reinstated, Madabuchi clarified the proper legal procedures.
“If Natasha has flouted the order of a court, they have lawyers… They know what to do. If she flounced the order of the court, you don’t do it by doing your own recklessness,” he advised.
He explained that the proper procedure would involve issuing formal notices and seeking court intervention rather than taking unilateral action.
Maduabuchi expressed broader concerns about clarity in judicial pronouncements, noting a pattern of ambiguous judgments.
“The first thing you must realize about court is certainty. Once the judgment loses that trait of certainty, it becomes… that’s why we are here because there are some things. That’s what judges try to avoid,” he observed.
The senior advocate drew parallels with other controversial judicial statements, including references to “passing statements” by Supreme Court judges that have led to significant constitutional crises.
He distinguished between formal court orders and what lawyers call “obiter dictum” – passing remarks that are not backed by the force of law.
Maduabuchi emphasized fundamental constitutional principles regarding the separation of powers and the role of courts in a democracy.
“The court is not a legislator,” he stressed, arguing that when Parliament grants discretionary powers to institutions like the Senate, courts should not second-guess those decisions unless they violate constitutional provisions.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
