Daniel Otera
A landmark ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja has reaffirmed the constitutional boundaries of legislative disciplinary powers, ordering the immediate reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The judgment declared her six-month suspension from the Nigerian Senate unlawful, sparking renewed debate on the balance between parliamentary authority and the rights of elected representatives.
Delivering the decision on Friday, Justice Binta Nyako described the suspension imposed in March and spanning nearly half of the legislative calendar as “excessive and unconstitutional”. The court held that the action effectively denied the people of Kogi Central senatorial district their right to representation.
“Suspending a senator for six months, which is equivalent to 181 legislative sitting days, effectively denies the people of Kogi Central their constitutional right to representation,” the judge stated.
While affirming the Senate’s authority to regulate the conduct of its members under its Standing Orders, the court ruled that such powers must not override provisions of the Nigerian Constitution. Justice Nyako emphasised that any disciplinary action taken by a legislative body must pass the tests of legality, proportionality, and respect for fundamental rights.
The ruling adds to a growing body of judicial precedent limiting the powers of the National Assembly to impose suspensions deemed arbitrary or excessive. Previous decisions in favour of former senators Ali Ndume and Ovie Omo-Agege similarly declared long-term suspensions unconstitutional and inconsistent with democratic principles.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had approached the court on 3 March 2024, seeking to halt an investigation by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions. The probe stemmed from a heated exchange between the senator and Senate President Godswill Akpabio during plenary, centred on a dispute over her reassigned seat.
Despite an interim order by Justice Obiora Egwuatu restraining the Senate from proceeding with disciplinary measures, the Red Chamber suspended her on 6 March. In response, the senator filed contempt proceedings against key officials of the Senate, including the Clerk and Senate President Akpabio.
The Senate’s legal team argued that the matter was an internal legislative issue and therefore beyond judicial interference. They also cited violations of Senate Standing Rules to justify the suspension. However, Justice Nyako dismissed the preliminary objections, stating that the matter involved the interpretation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
“Fundamental rights supersede institutional convenience,” the court ruled, rejecting the idea that internal procedures can trump constitutional guarantees of representation.
While the court ruled in favour of reinstating Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, it also imposed a ₦5 million fine against her for violating a standing court order. On 27 April, the senator had published a satirical apology on her Facebook page, mocking the court’s gag order that barred all parties in the case from speaking to the media or making public statements.
Justice Nyako found the post to be in breach of a valid judicial directive and ordered the senator to issue an unreserved apology in two national dailies and on her Facebook page within seven days. “While her action constituted civil rather than criminal contempt, the senator must purge herself by complying with the court’s directive,” the judge said.
The court partially upheld some aspects of the Senate’s conduct. It ruled that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s attempt to speak during plenary from an unassigned seat breached Section 6(2) of the Senate Standing Rules. The reassignment of her seat by Senate President Akpabio was also deemed valid and within administrative powers granted under Section 6(1) of the Rules.
However, the referral of the senator to the Ethics Committee did not justify a suspension of six months, which the court found disproportionate and in conflict with constitutional guarantees of equal representation for all citizens.
Legal analysts say the ruling demonstrates a dual precedent: it respects the Senate’s right to enforce order internally, while simultaneously reinforcing the judiciary’s role in upholding the Constitution and protecting democratic participation.
The ruling aligns with earlier landmark decisions involving legislative suspensions. In November 2017, Justice Babatunde Quadri ruled in favour of Senator Ali Ndume, declaring his 90-day suspension “illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional”. The Senate was ordered to reinstate him and pay his withheld allowances, as there was no constitutional support for suspensions exceeding 14 sitting days.
Likewise, in May 2018, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba overturned Senator Ovie Omo-Agege’s suspension, stating that internal disciplinary mechanisms must not violate the constitutional rights of elected officials. These cases have helped define the boundaries of parliamentary discipline and reasserted judicial oversight over legislative overreach.
Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) mandates that the Senate and House of Representatives must each sit for a minimum of 181 legislative days per year.
By implication, the six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan roughly equivalent to half the legislative calendar effectively denied her constituents in Kogi Central Senatorial District parliamentary representation for nearly 50 per cent of the legislative year.
Kogi Central, one of the three senatorial districts in Kogi State, is estimated to have a population of over 1.4 million people, based on recent projections from the National Population Commission (NPC) and proportional breakdowns from previous census data.
Prolonged legislative suspensions of this nature have drawn criticism from civic groups and policy analysts. In a 2022 policy brief, BudgIT and the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) cautioned that extended suspensions can lead to “constituency alienation, underdevelopment, and weakened legislative oversight.”
The ruling in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case reinforces growing concern over how legislative disciplinary mechanisms, when unchecked, may undermine democratic representation and disenfranchise large populations across Nigeria’s senatorial zones.
The ruling sets a clear legal benchmark for how legislative disciplinary powers should be exercised within a constitutional democracy. It reinforces the courts’ authority to check arbitrary decisions that undermine the principle of representative governance.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has resumed her duties following the ruling, but public attention remains fixed on her ongoing dispute with Senate leadership particularly in light of her previous allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Akpabio.
The Senate dismissed the allegations on two separate occasions, while Mr Akpabio has consistently denied the charges.
