Court affirms Senate’s power to suspend Natasha
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed the July 4, 2025, pronouncement by a Federal High Court in Abuja that the Senate possesses the power to discipline and suspend
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed the July 4, 2025, pronouncement by a Federal High Court in Abuja that the Senate possesses the power to discipline and suspend erring members.
In a judgment yesterday, a three-member panel of the appellate court held that the Senate did not violate Kogi North Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s right by reallocating her seat, preventing her from speaking from the seat not allocated to her, and for referring her to its Ethics Committee for investigation for misconduct.
As against her claim that she was not issued a prior notice before her seat was relocated, the court said no provision of the Senate Standing Order of 2023 requires the Senate President to notify members in advance before relocating their seats.
The judgment was on the appeal filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan.
In the lead judgment, Justice Abba Mohammed held, among others, that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s right was not violated, adding that “her right was never activated, having failed to place herself in the right place where she could have exercised the said right”.
Justice Mohammed also held that under the Senate Standing Orders 2023 the Senate President “is clearly empowered to allocate and reallocate seats”.
READ ALSO: Nigeria recorded trade surplus in 2025, valued at N113trn, says Oduwole
The judge added that the Senate President was right to enforce Order 6(2) to prevent her from speaking for failing to speak from the seat allocated to her.
He also held that the decision of the Senate to refer Akpoti-Uduaghan to its Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petition did not amount to a violation of her right to a fair hearing.
The court added that the Kogi North senator was under an obligation to submit herself to the committee.
The judge further held that as against Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claim, the trial court did not misunderstand her case, as it was hinged solely on the protection of her parliamentary privileges.
Justice Mohammed equally held that as a senator, Akpoti-Uduaghan must first show that she has fulfilled the conditions precedent for her to exercise the rights she was claiming and the parliamentary privileges she sought to be protected.
The judge faulted her contention that the trial court was wrong to have set aside an earlier interim order made by Justice Obiora Egwuatu (who was handling the case before it was transferred to Justice Nyako), restraining the Senate from proceeding with disciplinary actions against her.
Justice Mohammed held that since the case started afresh before Justice Nyako, the orders made earlier become spent except the new judge decides to retain the old orders.
He also held that as at when Justice Nyako commenced hearing in the case in April, the ex parte interim order issued by Justice Egwuatu on March 4 lapsed on March 21, even before the motion filed by the respondents to have the order set aside was still pending.
Justice Mohammed further held that the observation by the trial court that the Senate should reconsider the length of her suspension was a mere opinion of the trial judge, because Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan did not formally present the issue of her suspension before the court and she did not challenge the said suspension as required.
He proceeded to court strike out the substantive suit she filed before the trial court because the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit that queried the proceedings of the Senate, which did not violate any constitutional provision of or any extant laws.
The judge, however, voided Akpoti-Uduaghan’s conviction for contempt and set aside the N5 million fine imposed on her on the grounds that the contempt proceeding was not properly conducted.
He faulted the decision of the trial court to subsume the contempt proceeding in the middle of the proceedings in the substantive case.
Justice Mohammed held that since it was the order made by Justice Binta Nyako that Akpoti-Uduaghan violated, she ought to be tried before another judge of the same Federal High Court after being served with the required Forms 48 and 49 to allow her to purge herself of the act of contempt of she so wished.
Justice Adebukola Banjoko, who wrote the lead judgment in the cross appeals filed by the Senate President, but was read yesterday by Justice Mohammed, allowed the cross appeal.
Justice Banjoko held, among others, that the trial court ought to have struck out the suit filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan upon holding that it lacked jurisdiction.
She also faulted the trial court for commenting on the nature of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension when the issue was not properly placed before it by the appellant, as required.
