APPEAL COURT BACKS SENATE ON NATASHA’S SUSPENSION, SAYS SPOKESMAN

Read Time:3 Minute, 14 Second

By: Fasasi Hammad

The Senate on Monday described the Court of Appeal’s decision upholding the suspension of Kogi Central senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, as a firm endorsement of parliamentary independence and the doctrine of separation of powers.

It stated that the legislature’s authority to discipline its members is constitutionally guaranteed and subject to judicial intervention only where there is an obvious breach of constitutional or statutory provisions.

The Senate’s reaction followed a judgment delivered by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal in appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/1107/2025. In a unanimous ruling by a three-member panel, the appellate court held that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension did not violate her parliamentary privileges or fundamental rights.

However, the court granted the senator partial relief by setting aside the ₦5 million fine and the apology order imposed on her in contempt proceedings arising from the controversial six-month suspension, which she had repeatedly challenged as unlawful.

The dispute originated on February 20, 2025, when Senate President Godswill Akpabio ruled Akpoti-Uduaghan out of order during plenary for refusing to speak from her reassigned seat. The incident led to her suspension and referral to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, triggering a legal contest over the limits of legislative discipline and judicial oversight.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice A. B. Muhammed ruled that Akpabio acted strictly in line with the Senate Standing Rules by denying the senator the floor, noting that she was not seated in her officially designated position. The court affirmed that the Senate President has the authority to allocate and reassign seats and that lawmakers are required to speak only from their assigned seats.

Justice Muhammed further held that under Section 66(4) of the Senate Standing Rules, the Senate is empowered to discipline members who breach its procedures in order to preserve order and decorum. The court faulted Akpoti-Uduaghan for refusing to comply with the seat reassignment and dismissed her claim that she was not given prior notice.

The appellate court also ruled that the Federal High Court ought to have declined jurisdiction, as the Senate acted within its internal rules that permit the suspension of members who violate legislative procedures. It added that once the senator became aware of her reassignment, she was obligated to move to her new seat, validating the Senate’s reliance on Order Six, Rule Two, following her refusal.

Additionally, the court rejected her argument that the suspension violated an ex parte order issued by Justice Obiora Egwuatu, explaining that the order ceased to have effect after the judge recused himself and the matter was reassigned to Justice Binta Nyako.

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal struck down the contempt proceedings and the ₦5 million fine imposed by Justice Nyako, holding that the failure to properly serve Forms 48 and 49 on the senator rendered the sanctions invalid.

Reacting to the ruling, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Yemi Adaramodu, said the judgment clearly reaffirmed parliamentary autonomy and the separation of powers. He stated that the court confirmed the Senate’s disciplinary powers are constitutionally protected and do not amount to a violation of fundamental rights unless there is a clear constitutional breach.

He added that lawmakers are bound by internal legislative discipline and that courts will only intervene where there is a demonstrable violation of the Constitution or statute.

Efforts to reach Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lead counsel, West Idahosa, for comment were unsuccessful as of filing. However, sources within her legal team described the judgment as a validation of due process and the rule of law, stressing that even legislative authority must be exercised strictly within constitutional and procedural limits.

“The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that no institution is above the law. Where due process is breached, the action cannot stand,” a source said.