The legal counsel to the Senator representing Kogi Central, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has faulted the National Assembly’s interpretation of a Federal High Court’s judgment which ordered her reinstatement to the Senate, insisting that the judgment was binding and must be complied with in full.
In a rejoinder dated July 14, and addressed to the Director of Litigation and Counselling, Legal Services Directorate of the National Assembly, Mr Charles Yoila, Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team, led by  Mr Michael Numa (SAN), accused the Senate of misinterpreting the decision of the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 — Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of National Assembly & 3 Ors.
The lawyers responded to an earlier correspondence from the National Assembly dated the same day, in which the Senate purportedly treated the court’s judgment as advisory. They argued that the enrolled judgment was not suggestive, but declaratory and mandatory in nature.
“The preamble of the enrolled order begins with the words ‘it is hereby ordered’ and proceeds to enumerate 12 distinct and substantive orders,” the letter stated.
“Of particular relevance is Order 12 which directed that the Senate should recall the plaintiff. While the word ‘should’ is used, the context of the full judgment supports a binding construction”, it argued.
The legal team noted that the plaintiff had sought, among other reliefs, an order nullifying the recommendations and findings of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, which had led to her suspension. They further referenced that the plaintiff’s application for a mandatory injunction was heard alongside the substantive matter and was incorporated into the composite judgment.
Referencing Order 4 of the enrolled judgment, Mr Numa maintained that the court had adjudged the suspension of Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan as unconstitutional, excessive, and ultra vires.
He contended that, pursuant to Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Senate’s action was null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with constitutional provisions.
The letter made reference to Section 287(3) of the Constitution, which mandates all authorities and persons to give effect to the decisions of courts. It also invoked Section 318, which defines a court decision to include judgment, decree, order, conviction, sentence, or recommendation.
To reinforce the legal position, the letter cited *Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd v. Tempo Energy (Nig.) Ltd* (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 125 at 144–145, where the Supreme Court held that recommendations arising from adjudicated disputes may constitute binding judicial acts.
“The judgment in this case falls squarely within the definition of enforceable judicial determinations,” Mr Numa argued, urging the Legal Services Directorate to revisit the enrolled order and advise the Senate to comply accordingly.
He emphasised that compliance with the judgment was not optional or discretionary, but a constitutional obligation binding on the Senate under the principle of separation of powers and judicial supremacy.
In a final note, the legal team informed the National Assembly that Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan intends to resume her legislative duties on July 22, especially in light of the recent passing of former President Muhammadu Buhari, describing the development as a moment of national transition.
The letter concluded with a caution that the embattled senator reserves the right to pursue all legal avenues to enforce her rights should the Senate continue to defy the judgment.
This development sets the tone for a potential legal showdown between the judiciary and the legislature over the enforcement of court orders, especially in politically sensitive matters involving elected representatives.