THE SENATE SUSPENSION OF SENATOR AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY

By:

Essien H. Andrew, SAN

I am particularly disturbed by the opinion expressed through the media by some lawyers, acting with ulterior political motives, that it was unconstitutional for the Senate to suspend Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for more than 14 days. In this article, I want to correct some misconceptions concerning the law on this issue without delving into detailed legal arguments on the matter.

The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan on March 6, 2025, for six months. This disciplinary measure was taken in response to her disorderly conduct in the hallowed floor of the Senate while in session. Her suspension has understandably generated a lot of comments and divided public opinion.

Most of the lawyers supporting the opinion that the Senate acted unconstitutionally in suspending Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for more than 14 days rest their views on the provision of Order 67(4) of the Senate Standing Order of 2015, which stipulates that a Senator may be suspended through a motion “for any time stipulated in the motion not exceeding 14 legislative days”. First of all, “14 legislative days” is not equivalent to 14 days literally, rather it refers to the number of days the Senate actually sits to do its business. Since the Senate sits about three times a week, 14 legislative days could be as long as four to five weeks.

Secondly, the provision of Order 67(4) in the Senate Standing Order is subject to the provision of Order 67(12) of the same Senate Order. The said Order 67(12) stipulates as follows: "Nothing in this rule shall be taken to deprive the Senate of the power of proceeding against any Senator according to the resolution of the Senate". The implication of this provision is that, notwithstanding the provision of Order 67(4), the Senate is not deprived of its power to proceed against, that is discipline, a Senator according a resolution passed by the Senate. In other words, a resolution duly passed by the Senate on a disciplinary measure against a Senator is superior to any specific provision stipulated in the Rules of the Senate. In effect, the Senate was acting constitutionally when it suspended Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for a period of six month through a resolution duly passed by the Senate. The resolution to that effect was constitutional because it was made in accordance with Order 67(12) of the Senate Standing Order of 2015 as amended. The resolution was constitutional for the further reason that it was passed after Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was given the opportunity to defend herself before the appropriate Senate Committee.

In 2021 Hon. Mohammed Gudaji Kazaure was suspended by the House of Representatives for a period of six-month and no court of law declared his suspension to be unconstitutional because due process was followed just as in the case of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. The few instances where our courts have declared the suspension of a legislator as unconstitutional were due entirely to the peculiarities of those cases. Often such declarations were made by the court in circumstances where the suspended legislator was not given his fundamental right to fair hearing before his suspension; or where the rules of the relevant legislative house were not followed in the suspension of the legislator. But in the case of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan there were no such infractions of either the Constitution or the Rules of the Senate to justify the arguments canvassed by some lawyers that her suspension is unconstitutional.

I wish to emphasize that the power of the Senate to disciple its erring members is an important part of our democratic process, because without such powers the Senate would not be able to maintain order at its sessions, enforce its rules and ensure the smooth conduct of its legislative business. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in every country where democracy is practiced ensures that every legislative body is vested with the authority to regulate its internal affairs without external interference. The need for the legislature to be self-regulating is very essential to its independence. Thus in section 60 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the National Assembly is empowered to make Rules for the orderly conduct of its proceedings.

It is important to the doctrine of separation of powers, enshrined in our Constitution, that each arm of government must have some level of autonomy to operate its mandate without interference from other arms of government. Consequently, our courts have consistently acknowledged the authority of our legislative bodies to regulate their internal affairs. In ASOGWA vs. CHUKWU (2003), the court emphasized that the judiciary must not interfere with the internal disciplinary procedure of the legislature unless there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions. Since there was no violation of the Constitution in the suspension of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, our courts are legally obliged to respect the autonomy of the legislative branch and desist from encroaching on its constitutional mandate.

It has also been argued that the suspension of any legislator is unconstitutional because it denies the legislator’s constituents of their right to legislative representation. I maintain that this argument is not tenable because every legislative house has a constitutional responsibility to ensure adherence by its members to the ethics, standards and rules of the house. That is why legislative houses are given the powers to make Rules to govern the conduct of its affair under our Constitution. Consequently, the temporary suspension of any legislator for the violation of such Rules is not detrimental to his or her constituents because it serves the greater good of every constituent by ensuring the smooth running of the legislature.

My conclusion therefore is that the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was a valid exercise of the Senate's inherent authority to regulate its internal affairs and discipline its members. The action of the Senate is supported by many judicial precedents and constitutional principles that uphold the power of the Senate to discipline its member. The Senate's resolutions of March 6, 2025 on the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for a period six months is therefore a valid and constitutional exercise of the Senate’s discretion, and all the arguments canvassed to the contrary are politically motivated and obviously biased.