•Akpabio and Natasha
The foundation of constitutional democracy across Europe and America has been deliberately built over the centuries on the strict and faithful adherence to the principle of separation of powers which demands respect for the autonomy of each arm of government.
Therefore, The Nigerian federation, as an entity which practices constitutional democracy has expressly provided in Section 4, 60 and 101 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) that the Legislature of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the constitutional authority to regulate its internal affairs, including the protection of the sanctity of its established procedures and practices, and discipline members whose conduct (or misconduct) attempt to desecrate the solemn norms of the hallowed chambers.
In the exercise of the constitutional powers and authority of the National Assembly as an arm of government, the Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, was suspended on 25th day of February, 2025 following her ignominious display of crass disrespect to parliamentary rules, and her misconduct on the floor of the Senate.
That despicable act of gross abuse of parliamentary privilege by the suspended Kogi Central Senator, which was not only witnessed by the Nigerian public, including the innocent young students who were all seated in the Senate gallery for the purposes of learning the ethics/etiquettes of standard parliamentary practices, sadly became an obscene piece of destructive cinematic content circulated across the world via the internet and other media platforms to vent avoidable damage on the fragile public image of Nigeria in the comity of Nations.
That overwhelming resolution by the Senate which approved the suspension was actually well founded upon the enormity of the ethical breaches by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and the negative impact of same on the institution of the Senate. The Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions painstakingly followed due process in the exercise of its assignment of investigation on the matter. The detailed records of the committee had clearly confirmed that there was strict adherence to the standard procedures.
The constitutional right to fair hearing was upheld and she was afforded adequate opportunity to respond and to defend the case against her, and it was upon the conclusion of all the processes that a case of gross misconduct was established and then recommendations approving her suspension were subsequently adopted by the Senate in plenary session.
In defiance of the laid down practice and procedure of the Senate as an institution , the Senator hastily initiated an action in the High Court, and the court was misled in the process to issue an interim order restraining the institution of the Senate from performing its constitutional functions in proceeding with its internal investigation.
That interim order which became a subject of review offends settled constitutional principles.
Again, under Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, the judiciary, empowered under Section 6 of the Constitution to perform its functions, is not imbued with powers to interfere or usurp the legislative functions/powers granted to the National Assembly under Section 4, and therefore cannot interfere with the duly established internal disciplinary procedures of the legislature provided for in Sections 60 and 101.
Worthy of note is the fact that comparative constitutional jurisprudence also effectively supports the established position that the courts or judiciary, as a separate arm of government, have no powers to interfere or derail the functioning of the legislature.
In the United States of America, Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution empowers the legislative houses (the Senate and the Congress) with exclusive jurisdiction to discipline their members whether by means of suspension, expulsion or even a fine.
The House Committee on Ethics in Congress may issue reprimands, censures, and other disciplinary measures without judicial interference. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, which operates an unwritten constitution, the Parliament (House of Commons and House Lords) draws its powers to regulate its own proceedings and discipline its own members from the Common Law and Statutes, particularly Article 9 of the Bills of Rights 1689 which expressly stipulates amongst others that “… proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.
It is founded upon this law that a member of the British Parliament can be suspended or disciplined in accordance with their internal rules.
Back in our clime, perhaps in consonance with global best practice of constitutional democracies, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in a settled judicial precedent had long upheld the doctrine of the non-justiciability in respect of established internal legislative proceedings of the National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives).
The courts cannot therefore interfere with the legislature in the performance of their assigned constitutionally functions and powers to self-regulate itself as an institution in the discipline of its members.
In fact, anything to the contrary would only be a recipe for anarchy and instability in our legislative houses both at the national and sub-national levels.
In the considered view of a respected Professor of Law, Ali Ahmad, a renowned constitutional law expert who also possesses requisite cognitive experience as a former lawmaker, an interim order of a court lacks the constitutional current to halt or disrupt the powers of National Assembly in the exercise of its core functions as established under the community assemblage of Sections 4, 60 and 101 of the Constitution.
As a matter of judicial construction, Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
operate on equal footing; absolutely none is superior to the other.
Therefore, any judicial attempt to restrain the legislature from executing its powers amounts to a violation of the time-honoured principle of Separation of Powers.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claim that her suspension was retaliatory, allegedly due to accusations against the Senate President, is, at best, a watery face-saving and misleading narrative,unsupported by any shred of evidence or the documented proceedings. The suspension followed due process under the Senate’s Standing Orders, and certainly not a violation of her fundamental rights. Her decision to ignore the Senate Committee’s invitation and instead resort to social media and the courts undermines the principle of parliamentary accountability.
In conclusion, the Senate acted within its constitutional and procedural authority. The judiciary lacks the jurisdiction to invalidate or interfere with the Senate’s internal disciplinary processes. Any attempt to do so would be tantamount to judicial overreach and a breach of Nigeria’s constitutional order.
The Doctrine of the Separation of Powers must be respected and preserved.
*Ken Harries Esq is an Abuja-based Lawyer and Development Communication Strategist.
