The Court of Appeal in Abuja has struck out two interlocutory motions the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, brought before it in the case challenging the six-month suspension that was handed to the lawmaker representing Kogi Central, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel led by Justice Hamman Barka, struck out the motions after they were withdrawn, even as it awarded N100,000 cost against the Appellant.
In the ruling delivered on May 21, with the enrolled order sighted by Vanguard on Wednesday, the motions the court struck out were dated March 3 and March 25, 2025, and marked CV/395/M1/2025 and CV/395/M2/2025, respectively.
Whereas Akpabio was listed as the Appellant, cited as Respondents in the appeal were Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan; the Clerk of the National Assembly; the Senate; as well as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, Senator Neda Imasuem.
Specifically, Akpabio had through his team of lawyers, prayed the appellate court for an order, “enlarging the time within which the Appellant/Applicant may seek leave to appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 between Senator Natasha AkpotiUduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and 3 Others (Coram: Honourable Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu) delivered on March 10, 2025 on grounds of mixed law and fact as contained in the proposed Notice of Appeal.”
He further prayed for: “An order of this Honourable Court granting leave to the Appellant/Applicant to appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 between Senator Natasha AkpotiUduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and 3 Others. (Coram: Honourable Justice | Obiora Egwuatu) delivered on March 10, 2025, on Grounds of mixed law and fact as contained in the proposed Notice of Appeal attached as Exhibit B.
“An order of this Honourable Court enlarging the time within which the Appellant/Applicant may file their Notice of appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 between Senator Natasha AkpotiUduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and 3 Others. (Coram: Honourable Justice Obiora Egwuatu) delivered on March 10, 2025.”
As well as: “An order of this Honourable Court staying further proceeding in Suit No: FCH/ABJ/CS/384/2025 between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and 3 Others. (Coram: Honourable Justice Obiora Egwuatu), pending the hearing and determination of the Appellant/Applicant’s appeal before this Honourable Court.”
Following the withdrawal of the motions which were said to have been overtaken by events, the appellate court struck them out and awarded cost in favour of the Respondents.
It will be recalled that Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court had earlier fixed June 27 to determine the legal validity of the suspension that was slammed against the embattled Kogi state female federal lawmaker.
Justice Nyako inherited the case file after a previous judge who handled the matter, Justice Egwuatu, recused himself following claims of bias by the Senate President, Akpabio.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan approached the high court after she was summoned to appear before the disciplinary committee following a faceoff she had with the Senate President during plenary on February 20.
While protesting the alleged arbitrary change of her seating position, the lawmaker repeatedly raised a point of order to be allowed to speak, even though she had been overruled by the Senate President.
Irked by her conduct, the Senate President referred her case to the Ethics Committee which eventually recommended her suspension.
In a television interview she granted on February 28, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged that her troubles in the Senate began after she rejected unwanted sexual advances from Akpabio.
In the suit she filed before the court, she applied for an order to declare any action the Committee took within the pendency of her suit as “null, void, and of no effect.”
