High-Stakes Legal Move: Akpabio's Appeal to Halt Akpoti-Uduaghan's Case
Kogi Central senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan filed a lawsuit in the Federal High Court in Abuja to contest her Senate suspension, and Senate President Godswill Akpabio has petitioned the Court of Appeal in Abuja to stop the hearing.
On March 20, Mr. Akpabio filed the request and an application asking the Court of Appeal for permission to contest a Federal High Court interlocutory ruling that was rendered on March 10.
While the Court of Appeal considers his appeal contesting the lower court's order on March 10 to hear all pending petitions in the complaint filed by Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan, he wants the Federal High Court's proceedings to be suspended.
On March 20, Mr. Akpabio filed the request and an application asking the Court of Appeal for permission to contest a Federal High Court interlocutory ruling that was rendered on March 10.
While the Court of Appeal considers his appeal contesting the lower court's order on March 10 to hear all pending petitions in the complaint filed by Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan, he wants the Federal High Court's proceedings to be suspended.
Did you know? You can comment on this post! Just scroll down
On March 20, the Senate president filed a similar stay of proceedings motion with the Federal High Court, asking for the hearing of the suspended senator's claim to be postponed while the appeal was being considered.
The lower court's decision on March 10 to hear all pending cases together "is contrary to established legal principles," according to Mr. Akpabio's legal team, which was lead by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who submitted the application on behalf of the senate president.
The Senate's appeal to contest the court's decision of temporary injunction from March 4th, which suspended the Senate's disciplinary procedure against Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan, was one of the ongoing applications the Federal High Court chose to consider with others.
The lower court's decision on March 10 to hear all pending cases together "is contrary to established legal principles," according to Mr. Akpabio's legal team, which was lead by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who submitted the application on behalf of the senate president.
The Senate's appeal to contest the court's decision of temporary injunction from March 4th, which suspended the Senate's disciplinary procedure against Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan, was one of the ongoing applications the Federal High Court chose to consider with others.
Additionally, they contain Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan's requests for a mandatory injunction and committal procedures against Senate personnel involved in her suspension for violating the court order of March 4.
Mr. Akpabio's attorney wrote in the application submitted to the Court of Appeal on March 20 that "this honorable court must stay proceedings of the lower court pending the hearing and determination of the appellant/applicant's appeal, to prevent the judgement of this honorable court nugatory."
Setback for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal challenge to her suspension
Mr. Akpabio's attorney wrote in the application submitted to the Court of Appeal on March 20 that "this honorable court must stay proceedings of the lower court pending the hearing and determination of the appellant/applicant's appeal, to prevent the judgement of this honorable court nugatory."
Setback for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal challenge to her suspension
The Senate's disciplinary actions against the suspended senator were put on hold when the Federal High Court allowed the Senate's plea to rescind one of its rulings from March 4 earlier on March 19, the day before Mr. Akpabio filed his application at the Court of Appeal. After concurring with the Senate's legal team that the specific order was ambiguous, the court overturned it.
The court reversed the order and rescheduled Tuesday to hear all of the suit's outstanding applications.
In the meantime, the Court of Appeal promptly scheduled its hearing for the same Tuesday that the Federal High Court had previously selected to hear all matters currently before it, within 24 hours of the filing of Mr. Akpabio's plea seeking an injunction for the stay of the Federal High Court's proceedings.
The court reversed the order and rescheduled Tuesday to hear all of the suit's outstanding applications.
In the meantime, the Court of Appeal promptly scheduled its hearing for the same Tuesday that the Federal High Court had previously selected to hear all matters currently before it, within 24 hours of the filing of Mr. Akpabio's plea seeking an injunction for the stay of the Federal High Court's proceedings.
It suggests that the Federal High Court may have to delay its own proceedings out of respect for the higher court's authority after learning of the Court of Appeal's planned hearing.
The legal technicality used by Mr. Akpabio's attorneys is what caused the development, which might potentially throw Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan's complaint into disarray. Her hopes that the lawsuit would be swiftly ruled in her favor to overturn the Senate's disciplinary proceedings against her and shorten the six-month ban she was placed under have been dashed.
The legal technicality used by Mr. Akpabio's attorneys is what caused the development, which might potentially throw Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan's complaint into disarray. Her hopes that the lawsuit would be swiftly ruled in her favor to overturn the Senate's disciplinary proceedings against her and shorten the six-month ban she was placed under have been dashed.
Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan kickstarted the widening legal actions through the suit she filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja in the wake of her altercation with Mr Akpabio during the Senate’s 20 February proceedings over the seat allocated to her.
Embattled senator’s legal journey
In order to prevent the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, which is chaired by Neda Imasuen, from punishing her for alleged misbehavior, she filed the lawsuit via an ex-parte move.
She named the Senate, its President, Mr. Akpabio, the National Assembly Clerk, and the committee chairman as the first through fourth defendants in her lawsuit.
The judge ruled any decision made against her while the lawsuit was still pending to be unlawful and awarded an interim injunction on March 4th, stopping any disciplinary action against her.
Despite the restraining order, the Senate suspended her for six months on March 6th, claiming misconduct related to an altercation she had with the Senate president over her seat assignment during the February 20 plenary.
She named the Senate, its President, Mr. Akpabio, the National Assembly Clerk, and the committee chairman as the first through fourth defendants in her lawsuit.
The judge ruled any decision made against her while the lawsuit was still pending to be unlawful and awarded an interim injunction on March 4th, stopping any disciplinary action against her.
Despite the restraining order, the Senate suspended her for six months on March 6th, claiming misconduct related to an altercation she had with the Senate president over her seat assignment during the February 20 plenary.
On March 7, Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan responded by requesting a mandatory injunction and initiating contempt proceedings against the relevant Senate personnel, claiming that her suspension was a flagrant violation of the court's ruling from March 4.
When the case was heard on March 10, the court decided that all pending applications would be heard collectively. Mr. Akpabio's legal team contends that this decision goes against accepted legal doctrine.
Through its attorney, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, a SAN, the Senate filed an application on March 17 to contest the court's order from March 4, describing it as ambiguous. He went on to say that implementing the order would conflict with the Senate's constitutional responsibilities and go against the separation of powers theory.
When the case was heard on March 10, the court decided that all pending applications would be heard collectively. Mr. Akpabio's legal team contends that this decision goes against accepted legal doctrine.
Through its attorney, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, a SAN, the Senate filed an application on March 17 to contest the court's order from March 4, describing it as ambiguous. He went on to say that implementing the order would conflict with the Senate's constitutional responsibilities and go against the separation of powers theory.
Following that, the hearing date—which had been originally scheduled on Tuesday, March 25—was moved up to March 19 in response to a letter from Mr. Ojukwu.
Michael Numa, a SAN and the attorney for Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan, asked the court to reject the Senate's application during the hearing on March 10th, arguing that the defendants had willfully disregarded a legitimate court order.
The controversial order No. 4 was revoked by Judge Obiora Egwuatu in the 4 March ruling, which acknowledged that it was ambiguous and possibly have overreached the Senate's authority.
In order to hear all outstanding applications, the case was subsequently postponed one more to March 25.
Michael Numa, a SAN and the attorney for Mrs. Akpoti-Uduaghan, asked the court to reject the Senate's application during the hearing on March 10th, arguing that the defendants had willfully disregarded a legitimate court order.
The controversial order No. 4 was revoked by Judge Obiora Egwuatu in the 4 March ruling, which acknowledged that it was ambiguous and possibly have overreached the Senate's authority.
In order to hear all outstanding applications, the case was subsequently postponed one more to March 25.
Akpabio’s appeal court sojourn
In a motion submitted on March 20, the Senate President is asking for an extension of time to obtain permission to appeal the verdict rendered by Judge Obiora Egwuatu on March 10 in the case FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.
According to his legal team, the Court of Appeal must first approve their client's requested appeal because it presents both legal and factual difficulties.
All things considered, the attorneys argued that the Federal High Court erred in choosing to hear all pending applications at once rather than one after the other.
They contended that since granting the appeal would best serve the interests of justice, the balance of convenience favors him.
According to his legal team, the Court of Appeal must first approve their client's requested appeal because it presents both legal and factual difficulties.
All things considered, the attorneys argued that the Federal High Court erred in choosing to hear all pending applications at once rather than one after the other.
They contended that since granting the appeal would best serve the interests of justice, the balance of convenience favors him.
"The Senate president is contesting the 10 March decision of the lower court, which ordered all pending applications to be heard together on 25 March," Toyo Jimmy, a senior legislative adviser to Mr. Akpabio, said in an affidavit submitted on March 20.
According to the document, he was unable to timely file an appeal within the 14-day legal window because of this decision.
Keeping the case in the Federal High Court while an appeal is pending could make any subsequent ruling by the appellate court ineffective, according to the senate president's legal team.
Through his attorneys, Mr. Akpabio argued that the High Court's decision was an inappropriate use of judicial discretion and may jeopardize his right to a fair trial.
According to the document, he was unable to timely file an appeal within the 14-day legal window because of this decision.
Keeping the case in the Federal High Court while an appeal is pending could make any subsequent ruling by the appellate court ineffective, according to the senate president's legal team.
Through his attorneys, Mr. Akpabio argued that the High Court's decision was an inappropriate use of judicial discretion and may jeopardize his right to a fair trial.
Article Posted 1 Day ago. You can post your own articles and it will be published for free.
No Registration is required! But we review before publishing! Click here to get started
