Natasha: Another Controversial Judgment 

It was not until the Certified True Copy (CTC) of Justice Binta Nyako’s judgment in the case instituted by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against the Senate was released that Nigerians knew how controversial the verdict was.

In her judgment, the judge described the suspension as “excessive” and faulted the provision of Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Rules, as well as Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers & Privileges Act. He declared both as overreaching.

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

The judge 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, the question to ask is how on earth did Justice Nyako arrive at all the above assertions and still fail to make a declarative order for Akpoti-Uduaghan’s immediate recall?

Many are also shocked that she did follow precedents in the plethora of cases on suspension of lawmakers?

How was the Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case different from Senators Ali Ndume, Ovie Omo-Agege, and even Dino Melaye and 10 members in the House of Representatives, and other state lawmakers where the courts nullified their suspensions, ordered that they should be recalled and their withheld salaries and allowances be paid to them?

When did the courts become advisers that Justice Nyako had to offer advisory opinion urging the Senate to reconsider the suspension instead of issuing a binding directive enforcing Natasha’s reinstatement, after concluding that suspending an elected lawmaker for six months effectively denies a constituency its right to representation.

The judgment has joined the growing list of incongruous, incoherent and controversial judgments fuelling loss of confidence in the judiciary. 

It was the same way the Supreme Court delivered vague and controversial judgments that failed to address the leadership crises in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP).

This is a pure act of judicial indiscretion on the part of Justice Nyako. Simple.