Legal Opinion By DAYO FADUGBA, Esq.

I consider it a duty to draw the attention of the general public to the ongoing legal developments surrounding the judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on July 4, 2025, in the case instituted by the suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

Contrary to misleading public narratives, it is imperative to clarify that Senator Natasha lost all the reliefs she sought before the court. Specifically, the Federal High Court dismissed the following claims made by her:

1. Her challenge to the Senate?s decision to invite her to appear before the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions;

2. Her objection to the reassignment of her seat in the Senate chamber; and

3. Her claim in seeking to speak from an unauthorised seat on the Senate floor. In dismissing this claim, the court held that she was in breach of the Senate Standing Orders when she attempted to invoke Order 10 (which is an order of privilege), whereas she had violated Order 6(1) and (2) by refusing to speak from her newly assigned seat. This conduct was rightly held to be unparliamentary.

4. Her argument that she cannot be disciplined by the Senate.

All of these claims were resolved against her. Most importantly, no positive or mandatory orders were issued by the court for her recall to the Senate.

Despite this judicial defeat, Senator Natasha was seen celebrating with her supporters, falsely suggesting that the court had ordered her recall. When the reality of the judgment became clear, she filed a Notice of Appeal against aspects of the decision she found unfavourable, particularly the direct orders of the court that found her guilty of contempt and imposed specific sanctions. The court ordered her to:

Pay the sum of ?5 million to the Federal Government;

Pull down from her Facebook page a satirical and mocking post purporting to be an "apology"; and

Publish a sincere apology in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page.

To date, she has not complied with any of these clear and unequivocal orders. Instead, she now seeks to return to the Senate under the guise of enforcing a non-existent court order, falsely claiming that the obiter dicta of the Honourable Judge, mere judicial observations, constitute binding and enforceable directives. This distortion is legally flawed and grossly misrepresents the true state of the law and the facts.

Even more troubling is the emerging pattern of converting serious judicial proceedings into social media content, prioritizing optics over substance and trivializing the gravity of legal accountability.

In response to this self-induced legal confusion, a cross-appeal and an interlocutory application have been filed. These are aimed at preserving the dignity and independence of the Senate and preventing any disruptive consequences arising from the deliberate mischaracterisation of the court?s decision.

It must be emphasised that this cross-appeal is not political. It is a constitutional safeguard, filed to affirm that Justice Nyako?s remarks suggesting a review of Senate Standing Orders or the recall of the Senator were merely advisory opinions (obiter dicta). They were not binding judicial orders, as they did not emanate from any of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff and cannot, in law, be enforced.

It is my considered opinion that, the Legislature and particularly the Senate should not be distracted from its constitutional responsibilities

Update news