Appeal Court Strikes Out Akpabio’s Motions Against Senator Natasha, Orders N100,000 Costs
In a landmark legal development that reverberated across Nigeria’s political landscape, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on May 21, 2025, struck out two critical motions filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. This ruling not only signaled a significant legal victory for the embattled Kogi Central lawmaker but also delivered a blow to Akpabio’s bid to leverage the Senate’s disciplinary processes against a perceived political opponent. To add salt to injury, the court awarded a cost of ₦100,000 against Akpabio, payable to Senator Natasha.
This legal tussle stems from a deepening rift within Nigeria’s National Assembly that has been brewing since early 2025, underscoring broader tensions around parliamentary discipline, political rivalry, and the evolving gender dynamics of Nigerian politics.
The dispute between Senate President Akpabio and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan gained public attention following a heated altercation between the two on the floor of the Senate on February 20, 2025. Eyewitness reports and media footage revealed that the argument, which erupted during a plenary session, involved accusations of legislative bias, disrespect, and alleged gender-based intimidation.
In response to the confrontation, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions—widely seen by many analysts as being under the firm influence of Akpabio—swiftly summoned Senator Natasha for questioning. Many political observers saw this move as an attempt to silence or discipline a rising female politician who had refused to conform to established power structures within the National Assembly.
However, Natasha, known for her fearless advocacy and history of legal activism, fought back by taking the matter to court. Her legal team sought—and obtained—an injunction from the Federal High Court in Abuja, restraining the Senate Committee from conducting any disciplinary proceedings against her pending the determination of the substantive suit. The injunction effectively stopped Akpabio’s Senate from pursuing punitive measures that could potentially lead to suspension or other sanctions against her.
YOU MAY READ
Suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Faces Court Over Defamation Charges
In response to the Federal High Court’s ruling, Akpabio’s legal team quickly moved to file two motions at the Court of Appeal on March 20 and March 25, respectively. These motions were designed to obtain leave to appeal the Federal High Court’s injunction on several procedural grounds.
Specifically, the Senate President asked the appellate court for:
- An extension of time to seek leave to appeal.
- Leave to appeal on grounds of mixed law and fact.
- Extension of time to file a formal Notice of Appeal.
- A stay of proceedings at the Federal High Court pending the determination of his proposed appeal.
These filings were seen by legal commentators as standard defensive maneuvers deployed by political power players seeking to overturn unfavorable lower court rulings. However, it soon became apparent that Akpabio’s legal strategy lacked sufficient traction, particularly as Natasha’s legal team mounted a formidable defense backed by strong procedural arguments.
At the hearing on May 21, 2025, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Hamma Barka, with Justices Adebukunola Banjoko and Okon E. Abang concurring, delivered the ruling that set a new precedent for internal legislative disputes brought before Nigerian courts.
Interestingly, Akpabio’s legal counsel, perhaps realizing the legal futility of continuing the motions, applied to formally withdraw both applications. The Court granted this request but not without consequence. In a move that underscored the judicial system’s increasing intolerance for frivolous or tactical litigation by powerful politicians, the appellate court ordered Akpabio to pay ₦100,000 to Natasha as costs.
Further, the Court directed that Appeal No: CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CV/395M/2025, under which the motions were filed, be deleted from its records—effectively erasing the Senate President’s appeal attempt from the docket. This order represents more than just a procedural decision; it signified the judicial branch’s resolve to discourage manipulation of court processes by political heavyweights.
While the award of ₦100,000 in costs might seem modest by legal standards, its symbolic weight cannot be overstated. For Senator Natasha, this ruling was more than just a procedural victory—it was a personal vindication and a political triumph. Coming against the backdrop of increasing tension between gendered power structures within Nigerian politics, the ruling affirmed her right to fair treatment and access to the judiciary despite pressure from political adversaries.
For Akpabio, this was an embarrassing episode, especially given his role as the nation’s third most powerful official. Coming barely a week after Akpabio was pictured alongside top officials at the controversial renaming of the Abuja International Conference Centre after President Bola Tinubu, the loss was a political distraction that weakened his standing among both supporters and opponents.
Moreover, the case revealed a broader political reality: the once predictable machinery of legislative intimidation is increasingly being challenged in Nigeria’s evolving democratic environment. That a female opposition senator from a minority party could successfully take on the Senate President at the courts—and win—is a testament to how Nigeria’s democratic culture, despite its many flaws, continues to grow more robust.
The ruling also reignited important debates about the constitutional boundaries between the judiciary and the legislature in Nigeria. Critics aligned with Akpabio have argued that internal parliamentary discipline should be immune from judicial intervention, citing the principle of legislative autonomy.
YOU MAY READ
Senate President Akpabio and Former Governor Yahaya Bello to Testify in Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Defamation Trial
On the other hand, civil rights advocates and many constitutional scholars argue that where legislative processes are abused for political persecution or violate fundamental rights, the judiciary not only has the right but the duty to intervene. The Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, in this case, have both sided with the latter interpretation.
According to legal experts, this decision adds to a growing body of case law affirming that even the sacred halls of legislative privilege cannot shield unethical or unlawful political conduct from judicial scrutiny.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s victory at the Court of Appeal further consolidates her growing political stature. Once considered a political underdog, especially in the traditionally male-dominated arena of Kogi politics, Natasha has gradually carved out a national reputation as a defiant, articulate, and legally savvy politician.
Her past legal battles, including her successful challenge against attempts to truncate her senatorial candidacy, have earned her admiration within Nigeria’s civic and political spaces. Many now see her as a potential gubernatorial contender in Kogi State or even a future candidate for higher national office.
Her triumph over Akpabio not only bolstered her personal brand but sent a broader signal that Nigerian women in politics can leverage legal and institutional tools to counter patriarchal political systems.
For Godswill Akpabio, Senate President and a former governor of Akwa Ibom State, this courtroom loss could be interpreted in two contrasting ways.
First, it reveals the limits of his influence beyond the legislative chamber. As Senate President, Akpabio has shown an ability to consolidate Senate support on national issues, especially controversial ones like budget approvals and federal appointments. Yet, his seeming overreach in attempting to deploy Senate disciplinary structures against Natasha—and the ensuing legal defeat—may embolden critics who view his leadership as imperious or politically overbearing.
Second, and more dangerously for his long-term prospects, this setback fuels the narrative of growing disconnect between the National Assembly’s leadership and Nigeria’s increasingly assertive civil society. His alignment with controversial political decisions, including defending the ₦39 billion Abuja Conference Centre renovation amid national economic hardship, may weaken his approval among key constituencies.
Nonetheless, Akpabio remains a formidable figure, especially with the backing of powerful blocs within the ruling APC. Whether this defeat marks the beginning of a political decline or just a temporary stumble will depend largely on his ability to recalibrate his leadership approach in the coming months.
The Natasha-Akpabio legal clash is also significant as part of the broader story of Nigerian democratic evolution. For decades, Nigeria’s political elite has often weaponized legislative structures to suppress dissent within party ranks or marginalize disruptive voices. This incident demonstrates that courts, particularly with assertive rulings like this one, are increasingly willing to act as guardians of democratic fairness.
Moreover, the political optics of a powerful Senate President being humbled by a single opposition senator in open court sends a powerful message to younger politicians, women, and civil society activists: the pathways to justice, though arduous, are opening up.
While this ruling is decisive concerning the particular motions struck out, it does not necessarily mark the end of hostilities between Natasha and Akpabio. Political insiders suggest that other attempts may yet emerge, either through internal Senate mechanisms or fresh legal processes, to counter Senator Natasha’s growing influence.
However, with this recent victory, Natasha’s legal team has now demonstrated their capacity to effectively counter such maneuvers. Unless Akpabio recalibrates his approach—potentially seeking reconciliation or adopting a more inclusive leadership style—he risks becoming entangled in further legal embarrassments, especially as Nigeria edges closer to the heated political contests of the 2027 general elections.
In the wider scheme of Nigeria’s turbulent political landscape, the May 21, 2025 ruling of the Court of Appeal is a symbolic and substantive victory for the rule of law. It underscores the judiciary’s potential role as an equalizing force in the perennial struggles between entrenched power brokers and emerging political challengers.
For Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, this victory is yet another milestone in her steady climb as one of Nigeria’s most watched political figures. For Akpabio, it’s a bruising but instructive defeat that may yet shape his political strategies moving forward.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s democracy is better for it. The struggle for fairness in governance, gender representation, and institutional independence continues—and the courts remain central to that evolving story.
“AN ORDER of this Honourable Court 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 Akpoti- Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & 3 Ors. (Coram: Honourable Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu) delivered on 10th March 2025 on grounds of mixed law and fact as contained in the proposed Notice of Appeal attached as Exhibit B.
Nigerian cultural tours“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 Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & 3 Ors. (Coram: Honourable Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu) delivered on 10th March 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 Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & 3 Ors. (Coram: Honourable Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu) delivered on 10th March 2025.
Nigerian cultural tours“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 & 3 Ors. (Coram: Honourable Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu), pending the hearing and determination of the Appellant/Applicant’s appeal before this Honourable Court.”
Ruling on the motions, which were identical in content but filed on different dates, the Court of Appeal struck them out following an application by Akpabio’s legal team to withdraw them.
In the decision delivered on May 21, 2025, the three-member panel of Justices, led by Justice Hamma A. Barka, also ordered Senate President Akpabio to pay ₦100,000 in costs to the 1st Respondent, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Nigerian cultural toursThe court’s enrolled order, signed by Deputy Chief Registrar Josephine J. Ekperobe, confirmed that the application to withdraw the motions was granted, and the motions were accordingly struck out.
Additionally, the court directed that Appeal No: CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CV/395M/2025 be deleted from its records.
Justice Barka delivered the lead judgment, with Justices Adebukunola A. Banjoko and Okon E. Abang concurring.
The court decisions partly read: “This Court, Wednesday the 21st day of May, 2025, upon reading the Motion on Notice filed on the 20/3/2025 and 25/3/2025 together with the Affidavit in support deposed to by Toyo Jimmy.
“And after hearing, Deborah D. Anyanwu for the Appellant. Peter Erviwode with Daniel Akpoviroro, A. Ε. Imadegbelo and Y. M. Zakari for the 1st Respondent. Arnold Ubua for the 3rd Respondent.
“It is hereby ordered that: “Application seeking to withdraw the two Motions dated and filed on the 20/3/2025 and 25/3/2025 is granted and same struck out.
“Cost of N100,000 awarded to the 1st Respondent. Appeal No: CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CV/395M/2025 to be deleted.”
Source: SaharaReporters