FULL JUDGMENT ORDER: Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan V. Senate – What Justice Binta Nyako Decided Verbatim as released in the CTC:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS;

1. That all previous Orders and all pending applications before this Court became seized the matter are hereby set aside except the Originating Summons, preliminary objections and motion for interlocutory injunction which will be taken together.

2 That having found that the Plaintiff acted in breach of this court’s subsisting order, the Plaintiff must take responsibility for her action and remedy same. Thus, an order is hereby made for the Plaintiff to pay a fine in the sum of N5 Million to the Federal Government Treasury and to publish a public apology to the court in two (2) National Dailies and on her Facebook page within 7 days of today to purge herself of the contempt.

3. That the preliminary objection succeeds in part in that some aspects of the cause of actions may be inchoate but in enforcement of fundamental rights an act can lie where the mnfringement is in anticipation – is being, has been or is likely to be breached.

4. That the application for interlocutory injunction filed, which reliefs are similar to those in the Originating Summon are hereby subsumed into the Originating Summons and shall be determined together.

5. That reliefs 1, 2, and 3 calls for the interpretations of Order 9, 10 and 11 of the Senate Rules that touches on the privileges inuring to a Senator.

6. That a Senator can only raise issues of privilege upon complying with the provision of Chapter 3 Order 6 of the Senate Rules.

7. That I also find that the Senate Rules is superior to the Legislative House (Powers & Privileges) Act by virtue of Section 20 thereof.

8. That Order 6 of the Senate Rules gives the power to allocate and re-allocate seats to Senators to the Senate President without conditions.

9. That reliefs 4 and 5 bordering on the actions or non-actions of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, I find that for as long as the Senator (Plaintiff) is not speaking from the seat allocated to her, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents cannot and should not take any steps in the Plaintiff’s matter as the Plaintiff has not complied with the Senate Rules which govern her as well.

10. That to suspend a member for a period of 6 months equals to a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people. That I find this excessive and over reaching noting that it will prevent a member from complying with Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution.

11. That I am of the opinion that the senate has the power to review the provisions of the Senate Rules and can even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act both for being excessive and over reaching.

12. That the Senate has the power to and I believe should recall the Plaintiff and allow her to resume representing the people who sent her there to represent them.

LEGAL ANALYSIS: 

1. Structure of the Judgment

The judgment opens with the formal phrase:

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:”

This marks the beginning of the ratio decidendi — the binding parts of the judgment, i.e., the enforceable orders of the court.

Only statements that issue binding directives—e.g., orders to pay a fine, publish an apology, or declare legal interpretations—fall within this category. These are the ones the parties are legally bound to obey.

2. Item 12 Uses Suggestive, Not Mandatory, Language

Compare the structure and tone of item 2:

“an order is hereby made…”

Now look at item 12:

“the Senate has the power to and I believe should recall the Plaintiff…”

The phrase “I believe should…” is an expression of judicial opinion, not a judicial command. It lacks imperative language such as:

 • “It is hereby ordered that…”

 • “The Senate is directed to…”

Instead, it reflects the judge’s personal view on what the Senate ought to do.

3. Legal Definition of Obiter Dictum

An obiter dictum is:

“A statement made in passing by a judge in a legal opinion that is not essential to the decision and therefore not legally binding as precedent.”

The court’s binding decision is limited to:

 • Interpreting Senate Rules and constitutional limits

 • Imposing a fine

 • Declaring procedural boundaries

 • Denying or subsuming certain reliefs

But the suggestion that the Senate “should” recall her is not enforceable. It’s commentary — judicial advice, not judicial instruction.

Conclusion:

Item 12 is an obiter dictum — a non-binding judicial opinion, not a court order.

The Senate is under no legal obligation to act on it. It may choose to, but not because the court mandated it.