…Kogi senator yet to apologise, seven days after contempt ruling
A recent judgment by the Federal High Court in Abuja has reaffirmed the Senate’s exclusive authority to regulate its internal affairs, including the recall or reinstatement of suspended members.
This comes as Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, remains silent a week after the court found her in contempt and ordered her to apologise for defying an earlier directive.
In her ruling delivered on Friday, July 4, Justice Binta Nyako stated that while Akpoti-Uduaghan has the right to seek legal redress, her return to legislative duties must comply with Senate procedures as outlined in its Standing Orders.
Read also: Senate removes Natasha as Diaspora Committee Chair
According to a copy of the court judgement received by Business Day on Friday, reimbursed what had earlier stated that, “The Senate Rules are superior to the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act by virtue of Section 20 thereof.”
“Order 6 of the Senate Rules gives the power to allocate and re-allocate seats to Senators to the Senate President without conditions.”
Akpoti-Uduaghan had sued the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and Senator Neda Imasuen, Chair of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, challenging her suspension and seeking various reliefs.
However, the court upheld the Senate’s internal authority and noted that the senator failed to exhaust the proper channels for addressing grievances.
“A Senator can only raise issues of privilege upon complying with the provision of Chapter 3, Order 6 of the Senate Rules,” the judgment read.
Justice Nyako further ruled that neither the Senate nor the court is compelled to act on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s demands while she remains in breach of those internal rules.
“For as long as the 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,” she held.
Read also: Senate to receive court judgment on Natasha Akpoti’s case Tuesday
On the length of the suspension, the court expressed concern, “To suspend a member for a period of six months equals to a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member represents his people.
“That, I find, is excessive and overreaching, noting that it will prevent a member from complying with Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution.”
Justice Nyako added, “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 overreaching.”
While noting that the suspension violated democratic representation, the court stopped short of issuing a reinstatement order. Instead, it advised, “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.”
The ruling thus reinforces the legislative privilege doctrine, which protects the Senate’s autonomy in managing its affairs. The court acknowledged that a lawsuit may be valid if a violation is “anticipated, ongoing, or likely,” but noted that some of the claims brought by Akpoti-Uduaghan were “inchoate.”
In a separate pronouncement, the court found the senator guilty of contempt for violating a prior order. It directed her to purge herself by paying a ₦5 million fine and issuing a public apology.
“The Plaintiff must take responsibility for her action and remedy same,” Justice Nyako ruled, ordering that the apology be published in two national newspapers and posted on her verified Facebook page within seven days.
Read also: Senate to tighten disciplinary measures on erring members after Natasha’s saga
As of Friday, July 11, Akpoti-Uduaghan had yet to comply.
The Senate, on its part, has remained silent on the timeline or conditions for her possible recall.
Her suspension stemmed from a heated exchange on the Senate floor earlier this year, after which the matter was referred to the Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions. The committee’s recommendation for disciplinary action was adopted by the Senate.
When contacted for comment on her non-compliance with the contempt ruling, the senator declined to respond.
