The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed the power of the Senate to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, over allegations of misconduct, but set aside contempt proceedings and a N5 million fine imposed on the lawmaker.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Monday by a three-member panel led by Justice A. B. Muhammed, the appellate court ruled that the suspension did not violate the senator’s parliamentary privilege or constitutional rights.
“The court is satisfied that neither the appellant’s parliamentary privilege nor her constitutional rights were breached as a result of her suspension from the Senate,” Justice Muhammed held in the lead judgment.
The ruling represents a partial victory for both parties. While the court upheld the Senate’s disciplinary authority, it struck down the contempt charge and financial penalty that had been levied against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan following what was described as a satirical apology to Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
The appellate court also validated the decision by the Senate President to deny the lawmaker the opportunity to speak during plenary on February 20, 2025, after she was found sitting outside her officially allocated seat. According to the judgment, the Senate Rules empower the presiding officer to assign seats to members and restrict contributions to lawmakers occupying their designated positions.
“The Senate President is empowered by the Rules to allocate seats to members, adding that lawmakers are only allowed to speak from seats allocated to them,” the court stated.
The case stems from a series of events that culminated in Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension from the upper legislative chamber. The suspension followed allegations of misconduct, which included breaches of Senate standing orders and what was described as disrespectful conduct toward the leadership of the chamber.
The lawmaker had challenged the suspension and related sanctions in court, arguing that her rights as an elected representative and her constitutional immunity as a legislator were violated. She contended that the disciplinary measures amounted to an overreach by the Senate and infringed on her ability to represent her constituents.
However, the appellate court disagreed, affirming that the Senate, as a self-regulating institution, possesses the constitutional authority to discipline its members in accordance with its rules and standing orders. The judgment reinforced the principle of parliamentary autonomy, which allows legislative houses to maintain order and enforce discipline without external interference, provided such actions comply with the constitution.
Despite upholding the suspension, the court drew a distinction between legitimate disciplinary action and punitive measures that may exceed the Senate’s authority. The N5 million fine and contempt proceedings, which arose from the senator’s public apology deemed satirical by the Senate leadership, were found to be unwarranted and were consequently vacated.
The appellate court did not elaborate on the specific grounds for setting aside the contempt charge, but legal observers have noted that contempt powers, while broad, must be exercised within defined legal boundaries and should not be used arbitrarily or vindictively.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension and the events surrounding it have sparked debates about the limits of parliamentary privilege, the rights of individual lawmakers, and the extent to which legislative chambers can impose sanctions on their members. The case has also drawn attention to tensions within the Senate and raised questions about the balance between institutional discipline and democratic representation.
Parliamentary privilege is a constitutional safeguard designed to protect legislators from legal action or external interference in respect of their parliamentary duties. It is intended to ensure freedom of speech and independence in the discharge of legislative functions. However, it does not grant lawmakers immunity from internal disciplinary measures imposed by their respective chambers for breaches of rules or conduct deemed unbecoming.
Nigeria’s legislative chambers have, over the years, exercised their disciplinary powers in various instances, including suspensions, censures, and removal from committee positions. In some cases, such actions have been challenged in court, with mixed outcomes depending on the circumstances and the legal grounds for the challenge.
The National Assembly’s rules and standing orders provide mechanisms for regulating the conduct of members and maintaining order during proceedings. These include provisions on seating arrangements, speaking order, dress code, and general decorum. Violations can attract sanctions ranging from warnings to suspension or expulsion in extreme cases.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s recognition of the independence of the legislature in managing its internal affairs, while also affirming that such powers are not absolute and must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional principles and natural justice.
