The legal team representing Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has issued a rejoinder to the National Assembly’s Legal Directorate, insisting that the Senate has no discretion in complying with the Federal High Court judgment, which reportedly ordered her immediate recall.

In a letter dated 14th July 2025 and addressed to the Director of Litigation and Counselling, Charles Yoila, the legal team, led by Michael Jonathan Numa (SAN), rejected the interpretation that the court’s judgment was advisory or non-binding.

“The judgment conveys clear binding judicial determinations… compliance is not subject to further deliberation or discretion by the Senate,” the letter read.

At the heart of the legal argument is Order 12 of the court’s enrolled judgment, which states that “the Senate should recall the plaintiff.” While the Senate’s legal team reportedly views the word “should” as non-compulsory, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyers argue that the context, structure, and intent of the order make it constitutionally binding.

Citing legal precedent and constitutional provisions, the lawyers pointed to Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which compels the National Assembly to enforce court decisions, and Section 318, which defines a court’s “decision” to include recommendations arising from adjudicated issues, among other references.

The correspondence noted that Akpoti-Uduaghan intends to resume her legislative duties on July 22, 2025, and warned that she would pursue all lawful options should the Senate fail to act in line with the court’s judgment.

The upper legislative chamber had earlier argued that the ruling did not compel any specific action, but the plaintiff’s lawyers described that stance as a distortion of judicial meaning, urging the Senate’s legal advisers to revisit the enrolled order “in fidelity to the Rule of Law.”