Senator Natasha suspension legal issues: The Nigerian political landscape has recently been embroiled in another controversy following the reported suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi State Central District. This incident has brought to the fore several critical legal and ethical issues, particularly concerning the powers of the Senate to suspend its members and the obligation of governmental bodies to adhere to court orders.
In this article, we will explore the legal issues surrounding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s alleged suspension from the Nigerian Senate, including the court order against the Ethics Committee and historical precedents of illegal legislative suspensions. You will learn about the controversy over her seat change and the Senate’s disregard for court orders
The Genesis of the Dispute: Seating Arrangement and Allegations
According to reports, the saga began on Thursday, the 20th of February 2025, when Senator Natasha arrived at the Senate and discovered that her assigned seat had been changed. Objecting to this alteration, the Senator chose to occupy her original position. This action reportedly led to her being denied audience during the Senate session, culminating in a “heated exchange” with the Senate President.
Following this incident, Senator Natasha, in a television interview, narrated that she had previously rejected “romantic advances” allegedly made by the Senate President and that she believed the change in seating arrangements was a retaliatory measure for her refusal. These allegations triggered significant media attention and public outcry.
The Senate’s Response: Referral to the Ethics Committee
In the aftermath of Senator Natasha’s allegations and the seating arrangement dispute, the Senate reportedly voted unanimously to refer her case to its Committee on Ethics, Privilege and Public Petitions for a disciplinary review. The stated basis for this referral was the dispute over the seating arrangement.
During a live broadcast on the “Brekete Family” YouTube channel, the “ordinary President” Ahmed Issa contacted Senator Natasha to hear her side of the story. In this conversation, Senator Natasha elaborated on her experiences, stating that her attention had been drawn to discussions about the issue on the program. She explained that within the Senate chambers, there are rules protecting her statements from being used against her in lawsuits. However, she expressed concerns about making utterances outside the Senate, given that she claimed to be facing “a lot of harassment” and did not want to be misinterpreted or face legal action.
Senator Natasha further detailed that her privileges had been curtailed since a “nightclub incident” the previous year, including being removed from international activities and having her name struck from a United Nations event she was nominated for. She claimed that since then, her participation in international events has been self-sponsored. Regarding the seat change, she asserted it was a deliberate attempt to silence and alienate her, as her new seat in the “far corner” was less visible to cameras, potentially hindering her ability to contribute to debates and be recognized.
She also mentioned being removed from the Committee on Local Content just two weeks prior, allegedly due to unfounded perceptions that she was diverting resources from the Niger Delta to the North, despite the existence of projects like the Jakuta Kaduna Kano pipeline supported by a presidential executive order.
Senator Natasha acknowledged being aware of plans for her suspension but maintained her commitment to serving her constituents and upholding the law, stating that she had invoked “order 10,” an order of privilege, during the session when her suspension was being read, requesting to be referred to the Ethics and Privileges Committee instead.
Senator Natasha Seeks Legal Recourse: The Court Order
In response to the Senate’s actions, Senator Natasha filed an ex-parte application at the Federal High Court, seeking an order to restrain the Senate and its Ethics Committee from proceeding with the investigation against her. The Court granted this order, which was to be effective from the time it was issued until an interlocutory injunction could be heard. The matter was subsequently adjourned to the 10th of March 2025.
The Ethics Committee’s Defiance and the Suspension
Despite the subsisting court order, the Ethics Committee proceeded with its investigation and presented its findings to the Senate on Thursday, the 6th of March 2025. The committee reportedly found Senator Natasha guilty of breaching the standing orders of the Senate and recommended a six-month suspension without pay.
The recommendation included a caveat that the suspension could be reduced if Senator Natasha tendered a formal apology to the Senate President for her “outburst” during the plenary session. The proposed suspension also entailed the withdrawal of her salary and security details, and the locking of her office.
The Senate, however, unanimously adopted the recommendations but rejected the condition regarding an apology. They stipulated that an apology would only be considered at the end of the six-month suspension. Consequently, Senator Natasha was reportedly walked out of the Senate session that day, and the suspension was deemed to have taken immediate effect.
Legal Issue 1: Disregard for Court Orders – Contempt of Court
The decision of the Senate and its Ethics Committee to continue their investigation and ultimately suspend Senator Natasha despite a court order restraining them from doing so raises a significant legal issue: disregard for court orders, which amounts to contempt of court.
A court order is a binding directive issued by a judicial body, and it must be obeyed by those to whom it is directed. Disregarding or disrespecting a court order is considered a serious offense that undermines the authority of the judiciary and the rule of law. Such actions can be punishable by imprisonment or a fine, depending on the discretion of the court.
Drawing on the precedent set in the landmark case of Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, the source emphasizes that an act done in defiance of a subsisting court order is considered a nullity. In the Ojukwu case, the Supreme Court firmly stated that no party should take the law into their own hands when a court has issued an order.
Applying this principle to Senator Natasha’s case, the Ethics Committee’s investigation and the subsequent suspension, having been conducted in violation of a court order, could be deemed legally invalid by the Court.
Legal Issue 2: Validity of the Senator’s Suspension – Constitutional and Precedential Challenges
The purported suspension of Senator Natasha also raises questions about its validity under Nigerian law, particularly in light of constitutional provisions and a plethora of judicial precedents.
The Nigerian courts have consistently agreed with the position that unilateral suspensions of legislators by legislative bodies are unconstitutional and illegal. Several cases are cited to support this assertion:
- Honourable Dino Melaye (2010): The Federal High Court declared his suspension illegal and unconstitutional.
- Honourable Rifkatu Danna (2012 & 2017): Both the Bauchi State High Court and the Court of Appeal declared her suspension illegal.
- Senator Ovie Omo-Agege (2020): The Federal High Court declared his suspension as illegal and unconstitutional.
These consistent decisions from the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal establish a strong legal precedent indicating that the Senate, like other legislative bodies, lacks the inherent power to suspend a duly elected senator representing their constituents.
See Also: How to Start a Fundamental Rights Case in Nigeria
Conclusion: The Rule of Law and the Powers of the Legislature
The reported suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is fraught with significant legal issues. The Senate’s alleged decision to proceed with the suspension despite a subsisting court order raises serious concerns about the supremacy of the rule of law and the obligation of governmental bodies to respect judicial pronouncements. Given established judicial precedents, Senator Natasha’s suspension appears unconstitutional and legally questionable. The courts may once again affirm their position against unlawful legislative suspensions, ensuring that the sanctity of Nigeria’s democracy and the rule of law are upheld.
Thank you for reading this article on the Legal Issues surrounding Senator Natasha suspension, the Senate’s apparent disregard for a court order, and the precedents set by similar cases in Nigeria.