National Assembly’s Suspension of Its Members

With the court judgment faulting the six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, which has swelled the growing list of nullifications of suspension of members of the National Assembly by the federal lawmakers, it is hoped that the illegality will stop, Davidson Iriekpen writes

For those who have been keenly following developments in the National Assembly since 1999 when democracy was enthroned, the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja penultimate week faulting the six-month suspension slammed on Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate, was not a surprise but a laid down precedent.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako, the court described the suspension as “excessive.” It faulted the provision of Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Rules, as well as Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers & Privileges Act, declaring both as overreaching.

 It stressed that the two legislations failed to specify the maximum period that a serving lawmaker could be suspended from office.

According to the court, since lawmakers have a total of 181 days to sit in every legislative cycle, the six-month suspension handed to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was akin to pushing her away from her responsibilities to her constituents for about 180 days.

It held that though the Senate has the power to punish any of its members who breaches the rules, such sanction must not be excessive to deprive the constituents of their right to be represented.

However, Justice Nyako awarded a fine of N5million against Akpoti-Uduaghan for her “satirical apology” post on her Facebook page on April 27. She ruled that the social media post was made in disobedience of a valid court order prohibiting parties to the suit from making comments to the press or on social media regarding the subject matter of the pending suit.

The judge also ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan to tender an unreserved apology in two national dailies and on her Facebook page within seven days of the judgment to “purge” herself of the contemptuous act against the court.

Akpoti-Uduaghan had filed the suit on March 3, initially, to halt an investigation by the Senate and its Committee on Ethics into alleged misconduct, stemming from Senate’s proceedings where she had an altercation with the Senate President, Akpabio, over her assigned seat.

Despite the initial restraining order issued by the former judge, Justice Obiora Egwuatu asking the Senate to stay action on its disciplinary proceedings, the Senate proceeded to suspend her on March 6 for six months.

This led Akpoti-Uduaghan to file a contempt complaint against Akpabio and other relevant Senate officers for disobeying the order halting the disciplinary action against her.

As the matter continued to stir up public commentaries in the media, Akpabio urged the court to bar parties to the suit from speaking to the press or sharing social media posts about the matter.

However, late last month, Akpoti-Uduaghan mocked the Senate president with a satirical apology posted on her official Facebook page.

In the aftermath of the post, Akpabio’s legal team filed an application in court, accusing Akpoti-Uduaghan of breaching the gag order banning interviews and such a social media post while the court case lasted.

But Akpoti-Uduaghan countered the application, urging the court to dismiss it.

But the court partly ruled in favour of the Senate and Akpabio in some areas. It said the refusal to allow Akpoti-Uduaghan to speak during a plenary on the grounds that she was not seated in her designated seat was not a violation of her rights.

The court further held that the Senate has the constitutional authority to discipline its members for violating its Standing Orders. It held that a senator is only permitted to address the plenary from the seat formally assigned, adding that Akpoti-Uduaghan acted contrary to Section 6(2) of the Rules when she attempted to speak from an unallocated seat.

Akpoti-Uduaghan has joined the growing list of lawmakers who have successfully challenged their suspension by the Senate in court. But the National Assembly has often ignored court judgments. The question now is: When will the National Assembly stop slamming unreasonable suspension on its members?

In May 2017, a Federal High Court in Abuja nullified the suspension of Senator Ali Ndume by the Senate. Judge Babatunde Quadri ruled that the Senate had no constitutional backing to suspend a member beyond 14 days. He ordered the Senate to pay all of Ndume’s withheld salaries and allowances.

A year later, in May 2018, Ovie Omo-Agege, then senator representing Delta Central, secured a similar judicial victory. A Federal High Court, Abuja, ruled that his 90-day suspension over the comments he made during a debate on electoral reforms was unlawful. The court held that the legislature lacked the power to suspend a member in the manner it did.

Despite the above, the Senate still proceeded to suspend Senator Abdul Ningi, representing Bauchi Central Senatorial District in 2024, for three months for accusing its leadership of fraudulently smuggling projects into the 2024 budget.

It is not only in the Senate that this happens. In 2010, a Federal High Court in Abuja nullified the suspension of Dino Melaye and 10 others by the House of Representatives for alleging criminal diversion of funds by the Dimeji Bankole-led leadership of the House.

In all of these suspensions, the lawmakers were not allowed to attend plenaries and were prohibited from attending committee meetings and participating in oversight functions. 

Furthermore, their salaries, allowances and other entitlements were not paid, while their senatorial districts and constituencies wee also denied representation.

Where it derives the powers from, many are still wondering?

Perhaps, following the latest judgment, it was reported last week that the Senate is considering tougher disciplinary sanctions for its members, as the upper chamber passed the first reading of a bill seeking to amend the current framework for punishing lawmakers who violate its rules.

The proposed legislation, titled “Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act (Amendment) Bill, 2025,” was sponsored by Kaka Shehu (APC, Borno Central), seeks to introduce more stringent penalties for lawmakers found guilty of misconduct and streamline the existing process, which often involves setting up special committees to investigate and recommend sanctions.

Although the draft of the amendment has not yet been made public, it also seeks to ensure that specific offences attract clearly defined punishments without the need for prolonged deliberations or ad hoc investigations.

Many have described the action of the leadership of the National Assembly in shutting down voices of dissent among its members as civilian dictatorship.

It is more disturbing that it is when leaders who call themselves progressives that such draconian laws are being enacted to suppress any dissent opinion against these leaderships.

The Senate should note that no matter how tough the disciplinary sanctions are, it is embarking on a futile journey as dispute arising from the sanctions will still be subjected to judicial interpretation.