By DAYO ADESULU
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has affirmed the constitutional authority of the Nigerian Senate to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central, ruling that the lawmakers acted within the bounds of the law over allegations of misconduct.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Monday, a three-member panel of the appellate court held that the Senate did not breach Akpoti-Uduaghan’s parliamentary privilege or her fundamental constitutional rights by imposing the suspension. The court’s decision effectively upholds the Senate’s internal disciplinary powers and reinforces long-standing judicial deference to legislative procedures, provided they align with the Constitution.
Appeal Court Upholds Senate’s Disciplinary Powers
At the heart of the case was whether the Senate overstepped its authority by suspending one of its members and whether such action violated the affected senator’s rights as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The appellate court answered both questions in the negative.
According to the panel, the National Assembly, like other legislative bodies, possesses inherent powers to regulate its internal affairs, maintain order, and discipline members whose conduct is deemed incompatible with parliamentary rules and ethics. The judges noted that these powers are not only recognized by the Constitution but are also essential for the effective functioning of the legislature.
The court further stressed that parliamentary privilege does not place lawmakers above internal discipline, nor does it shield them from sanctions imposed in line with established rules.
No Breach of Fundamental Rights, Court Says
In dismissing claims that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s rights were violated, the Court of Appeal emphasized that the suspension did not amount to an unlawful denial of her rights to freedom of expression, fair hearing, or representation.
The judges held that the Senate followed its laid-down procedures before reaching its decision and that the disciplinary action fell squarely within the scope of legislative self-regulation.
Importantly, the court clarified that while elected representatives have a duty to speak and act on behalf of their constituents, that responsibility must be exercised within the framework of parliamentary rules. When those rules are allegedly breached, the legislature retains the right to impose sanctions, including suspension.
Background to Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Suspension
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension had sparked significant public debate, both within and outside the National Assembly. Supporters argued that the action was heavy-handed and politically motivated, while others maintained that discipline is necessary to preserve order and decorum in the Senate.
Following her suspension, the Kogi Central senator approached the courts, challenging the legality of the Senate’s decision and alleging violations of her constitutional and parliamentary rights. The Federal High Court had earlier considered aspects of the matter, paving the way for the appeal that has now been conclusively decided by the Court of Appeal.
With this latest ruling, the appellate court has effectively closed the door on arguments that the Senate acted outside its constitutional mandate.
Implications for the National Assembly
Legal analysts say the judgment has far-reaching implications for legislative discipline in Nigeria. By affirming the Senate’s powers, the Court of Appeal has reinforced the principle that courts will generally refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of the legislature, except in clear cases of constitutional violation.
This position aligns with previous judicial decisions that recognize the separation of powers and the autonomy of the legislature to manage its own proceedings.
However, the ruling also sends a message to lawmakers that parliamentary privilege comes with responsibility. Freedom of speech within the chambers does not equate to freedom from consequences when established rules are breached.
Political Reactions and Public Debate
Expectedly, the ruling has continued to generate reactions across political and civil society circles. Some observers see the judgment as a victory for institutional order and the rule of law, while others worry about the potential for abuse of disciplinary powers by legislative leadership.
For constituents of Kogi Central, the decision raises renewed concerns about representation during periods of suspension, even though courts have consistently held that such temporary measures do not invalidate an electoral mandate.
As of the time of filing this report, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has not issued an official public statement reacting to the Court of Appeal’s decision.
What Happens Next?
While the Court of Appeal’s judgment is binding, legal experts note that the senator still has the constitutional right to approach the Supreme Court if she chooses to pursue the matter further. Until then, the appellate court’s ruling stands as the authoritative position on the dispute.
For now, the decision marks a significant moment in Nigeria’s evolving parliamentary jurisprudence, clarifying the limits of legislative privilege and reaffirming the Senate’s constitutional authority to discipline its members.
#CourtOfAppeal #NatashaAkpotiUduaghan #NigerianSenate #KogiCentral #NigerianPolitics #RuleOfLaw #NationalAssembly
