Natasha’s suspension: Appeal Court strikes out Akpabio’s motions, imposes N100,000 fine
By Jeffrey Agbo
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has struck out two interlocutory motions filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio in the ongoing case challenging the six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central.
In a unanimous decision delivered by a three-member panel led by Justice Hamman Barka, the court dismissed the motions after they were withdrawn by the appellant. A cost of N100,000 was awarded against Akpabio.
The motions, dated March 3 and March 25, 2025, were marked CV/395/M1/2025 and CV/395/M2/2025, according to the enrolled order obtained by the news media on Wednesday.
Listed as respondents in the appeal are Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, and Senator Neda Imasuen, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions.
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.
READ MORE: Natasha denies claiming Akpabio blackmailed Tinubu to imprison her
“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.”
