Legal experts clarify that the Federal High Court’s July 4 ruling was advisory, not compulsory, no mandatory order for Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s return, and she has appealed the judgment.
According to constitutional scholar Ekemini Udim, the court merely issued advisory commentary, with no binding directive to lift her six-month suspension.
He clarified that:
“It is very clear: my Lord has not said, ‘Recall Senator Natasha’. … You cannot equate that to say, ‘Recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’.”
Dayo Fadugba, another legal analyst, emphasized that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan lost her bid to enforce a non-existent recall order and has since appealed the judgment.
A senior lawyer, Ken Harries, noted that it’s contradictory to both enforce a judgment you’re appealing and to ignore financial or apology directives linked to contempt.
The court’s language meant as a recommendation for the Senate to revisit its rules was non-binding and does not trigger immediate recall.
By proceeding with appeal, Akpoti-Uduaghan is essentially contesting her own victory, raising questions about enforcement versus legal strategy.
