When Justice Derails: The Federal High Court’s Judgment In Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Case And The Erosion Of Judicial Discipline

The July 4, 2025, ruling by Justice B.F.M. Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in the fundamental rights suit filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before her suspension which was ongoing before the Senate finally suspended her raises troubling questions about the consistency, restraint, and discipline expected in judicial pronouncements, particularly from Nigeria’s apex trial courts.

While the judgment was widely reported as a affirmation of legislative accountability, a deeper review of the enrolled order and the originating processes paints a more distressing picture one of judicial overreach and fundamental procedural irregularities.

At the core of this case was a straightforward prayer: Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan sought injunctive reliefs to stop the Senate from proceeding with her suspension without fair hearing. The reliefs, as captured in her application, were rooted in the Constitution particularly Section 36 and designed to preserve the status quo pending the determination of her substantive suit. Her prayers included mandatory injunctive orders to reverse actions taken by the Senate during litigation, not speculative or abstract “advisory” reliefs.

However, the judgment delivered by Justice Nyako strayed beyond this scope. The court made sweeping pronouncements, including a substantive nullification of her suspension and orders of reinstatement reliefs that, strictly speaking, were not specifically pleaded at that interlocutory stage. Even more perplexing was the punitive finding of contempt, levied against the senator for a social media post, which resulted in a ₦5 million fine and orders for a public apology. While courts do have the inherent power to punish for contempt, it is widely accepted that such proceedings should be clearly delineated, separately canvassed, and afforded full rights of defence, none of which appear evident in this instance.

A senior legal practitioner has sharply disagreed with the claims made by legal analyst Mr. Dayo Fadugba, who had dismissed the July 4, 2025, judgment of the Federal High Court as offering no enforceable relief in favour of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

Responding to Fadugba’s statement, the lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity to TheNigeriaLawyer, expressed dismay over what he described as “a grave misreading of the ruling and a deliberate attempt to sanitise judicial error.” He stated:

“I do not think Mr. Fadugba has carefully reviewed the enrolled order of the court or the processes filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. Had he done so, he would not assert that the court merely offered obiter dicta or commentary. The court went as far as holding that the suspension of the senator was unconstitutional, excessive, and a violation of Section 63 of the Constitution.”

The legal practitioner emphasized that the court indeed nullified the suspension, stating that keeping a senator out for six months equivalent to a full legislative session amounted to denying an entire senatorial district representation.

“This was not an advisory opinion. The court said, and I quote, ‘To suspend a member for a period of six months equals a suspension for 180 days, and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House. I find this excessive and overreaching.’ This is a declaratory finding and not commentary,” he said.

He further challenged the narrative that the Senator lost on all grounds:

“The Senate’s own procedures were called into question. The court noted that while the Senate has internal rules, those rules cannot override the Constitution. The judge also faulted the legislative process that led to her suspension.”

On the issue of the senator’s alleged contempt, the lawyer acknowledged that the court imposed sanctions but warned against conflating that with the substance of the main suit:

“Yes, the court found her in contempt, and that is a separate matter. But to use that as evidence that she lost on her constitutional challenge is misleading. The court bifurcated its judgment: one part addressed the legality of her suspension, the other her contemptuous conduct. The fact that one was upheld does not invalidate the other.”

He also described as “legally incorrect” Mr. Fadugba’s position that no enforceable order exists for the Senate to act:

“When a court declares an action unconstitutional and excessive, that declaration alone has binding force. Whether or not the word ‘recall’ was used is irrelevant. The principle is clear—restore the constitutional status quo ante. Mr. Fadugba knows this. His spin is disingenuous at best.”

TheNigeriaLawyer Editorial:

Let us be clear: the reliefs sought in court were not vague. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan sought injunctive orders to restrain the Senate from proceeding with her suspension, to preserve the status quo, and to reverse actions taken in defiance of a pending judicial process. The Senate, in the face of pending litigation, executed a suspension that denied constituents of Kogi Central their right to representation. The judge found that action excessive and unconstitutional. That finding was not an opinion it was a judgment.

Yet, we now witness legal commentators attempting to retroactively reframe this ruling as non committal, toothless, and procedurally inconsequential. This is a dangerous precedent. If judicial declarations of unconstitutionality are to be regarded as mere commentary, what remains of the power of the courts?

Moreover, it is troubling that the learned judge, while correctly nullifying the suspension, issued punitive contempt orders against the senator based on a satirical social media post without clearly affording her a full contempt hearing. This, in our editorial view, represents a procedural lapse and excessive judicial sensitivity unbecoming of a court of record.

We call for restraint among judicial officers. Courtrooms are not theatres for personal vindication or political appeasement. Where courts err, we must say so without fear or favour. This judgment, while commendable in its declaration against legislative impunity, errs in its punitive overreach and inconsistency in addressing the scope of reliefs sought.

🔹 Reliefs Sought by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan
Senator Natatsha Akpoti Uduaghan v The Clerk of the National Assembly Motion on Notice

1. Interlocutory Injunction
   She sought a restraining order to stop the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from proceeding with its investigation into her alleged misconduct during the February 20, 2025 plenary session.
2. Order to Maintain Status Quo
   She asked the court to compel the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate President, and relevant Senate committees to maintain the status quo as of February 25, 2025, effectively halting any suspension or punitive measures until her substantive suit was heard and determined.
3. Any Other Order
   She requested any additional reliefs the court deemed just and necessary in the circumstances.

🔹 Court’s Final Judgment (Delivered July 4, 2025)
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

1. Suspension Declared Unconstitutional
   The court invalidated the six-month suspension imposed on her, calling it excessive, unconstitutional, and a violation of Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution. It ordered her immediate reinstatement to the Senate.
2. Recognition of Senate Rules, But with Limits
   The court affirmed that the Senate has internal rules, including how senators may raise points of order, but these cannot override constitutional rights. It held that while the Senate President acted within his administrative purview, the suspension itself was disproportionate.
3. Contempt of Court Sanction
   In a twist, the court found her guilty of contempt for disobeying an earlier court order (via a satirical social media post). It ordered her to pay a ₦5 million fine and publish an unreserved public apology in two national dailies and on her official Facebook page.

🔹 Comparison: Reliefs vs. Judgment

🔹 Legal Commentary: Reliefs vs. Judgment

Some lawyers argue that the judgment went beyond the specific interim reliefs sought, particularly because:

• The senator did not specifically ask the court to nullify the suspension at the interlocutory stage but merely asked for a halt to the committee’s process pending full trial.
• The court proceeded to determine the substantive merits of the suspension rather than sticking strictly to the interim prayers.
• The contempt ruling and the punitive orders (fine and apology) were not included in the initial reliefs sought by the senator, yet they were imposed based on conduct during litigation.

“The court appears to have granted consequential reliefs that were not explicitly asked for,” a constitutional lawyer observed. “While courts can do substantial justice, they must remain within the confines of what is asked, especially at the interlocutory stage.”

However, others argue that the judgment is within the bounds of judicial discretion, as:

• The “any other order deemed appropriate” clause gives the judge latitude.
• The contempt ruling was based on clear violation of a prior court order — separate from the reliefs in the originating motion.

Conclusion

While Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan sought interim protection from suspension, the court went further by ruling on the constitutionality of the suspension itself, which some lawyers claim exceeded the scope of her immediate application. Nonetheless, the judgment effectively achieved her objective of being reinstated, albeit with the added burden of a contempt sanction — a development that legal analysts say demonstrates the tension between procedural rigour and substantive justice.

“History of Rivers State Judiciary: A Compendium of Personalities on the Bench.” Authored by Ampim Gogo Blankson, Esq., Deputy Director at the Rivers State Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the Rivers State Judiciary 💰 Cover Price: ₦20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) Bukky Law Books, Rivers State High Court Complex, Moscow Road, Port Harcourt – 📞 08034868754📞 08034729738📞 Enquiries: ______________________________________________________________________ "Democracy Or Demoncrazy?", "Good Governance" And "Politics And Political Class": Order Prof. Ozekhome's Essential Trilogy Now 📞 Enquiries: +234 704 044 9375 | +234 814 813 4773 | +234 816 872 3532 📧 Email: educodexl@gmail.com Follow the voice of wisdom. Read Prof. Mike Ozekhome. Be inspired. Be enlightened. Be empowered. ___________________________________________________________________

Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!

To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________

[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials

Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation ______________________________________________________________________