𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗣𝗧 𝗢𝗙 ‘𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗥𝗬 𝗜𝗡𝗝𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡’ 𝗜𝗡 𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗦𝗨𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗞𝗣𝗢𝗧𝗜-𝗨𝗗𝗨𝗔𝗚𝗛𝗔𝗡 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗜𝗚𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗡 𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗘

By Sylvester Udemezue

1. This commentary is not about the merit of the accusations by or actions of the Senate leadership against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan nor about the propriety or legality of Senate’s power of discipline against its members, nor about the allegations by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against the Senate President. The comment focuses on examining the extent of legal propriety and validity (if any) of the proceedings and procedural steps leading to suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan on 06 March 2025.

𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝:

2. Vanguard Newspapers had reported that on Thursday [20 February 2025] that “a heated confrontation erupted in the Nigerian Senate when [Senator Natasha] Akpoti-Uduaghan protested the reassignment of her seat by [Senate President] Akpabio. She arrived at the session to find [that] her name [had been] removed and her seat reassigned, prompting her to demand an explanation [from the Senate leadership over] what she perceived as an unjustified move ”

3. BussinessDay Newspapers’ report of 20 February 2025 titled, “UPDATED: Natasha, Akpabio Clash In Senate Over Sitting Arrangement” gave the following version:

“A dramatic confrontation unfolded in the Senate on Thursday as Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (PDP, Kogi Central) clashed over a seating arrangement dispute. The altercation began when Senator Natasha discovered that her seat had been reassigned upon resumption of tharrangemen. Refusing to comply with the new arrangement, she challenged the decision, sparking a heated exchange. Tahir Monguno, Chief Whip raised a point of order, referencing sections of the Senate rule book to justify the reassignment. He stated that the changes were necessary due to a shift in the Senate’s composition following the movement of some opposition members to the majority wing. According to Monguno, such adjustments fall within the constitutional prerogative of the Senate President. ‘Failure to comply with the new seating arrangement,” Monguno warned, “could lead to penalties, including being barred from participating in Senate discussions.’ Quoting Senate rules, Monguno further emphasized, ‘Any senator who refuses to comply with a seat reassignment will not be recognized or allowed to contribute to discussions.’ Upholding Monguno’s position, Akpabio ruled in favour of the order. However, when Senator Natasha raised her hand to speak, she was denied recognition for not addressing the chamber from her newly assigned seat. Unrelenting, she protested loudly, directly confronting the Senate President, ‘I don’t care if I am silenced, I am not afraid. You have denied me my privilege. Mr Senate President, ever since the night-club incidence, you have deliberately silenced my voice. My bills have not been able to scale through to second reading. I am not afraid of being silenced, but I will do so in honour. As a senator duly elected by my people, I chose to remain on this seat, come what may. The worst you can do is to suspend me from this sitting and that will not stop me from contributing my quota to my constituency, the Senate and Nigeria as a whole. Mr Senate President, I have taken a lot from you. If you don’t want me to speak publicly, I will let the whole world know how you have discriminated against me, maligned me, dehumanized me. Your choice of words have embarrassed me, Mr President, do what you may, I will not leave this seat.’ As she continued voicing her objections, Akpabio instructed the Sergeant-at-Arms to intervene. He said, ‘Please take her out, so that we can continue with today’s activities.’ However, instead of removing her, the Sergeant-at-Arms merely stood by as Natasha refused to vacate her previous seat. Coming under Order 42, Senator Isah Jibrin (APC, Kogi East), the most senior senator from Kogi State, attempted to mediate, offering an apology on behalf of Natasha. What you did in terms of the seating arrangement is within your power, and the reasons for it are genuine,’ Jibrin acknowledged. ‘We are here guided by law, and everyone must be subject to the rule. On behalf of the senators from Kogi State, we plead with you to allow us to guide her and not escalate the matter further.'”

4. It its 25 February 2025 report titled, “Senate Refers Natasha To Disciplinary Committee Over Seating Arrangement Dispute” ChannelsTV gave further insights:

“The Senate has unanimously voted to refer Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions for disciplinary review, following her recent seating arrangement dispute. The Kogi Senator had engaged in a shouting match on February 20 after discovering that her seat had been changed without her consent. The committee, chaired by Senator Neda Imaseun, has been given two weeks to report back on its findings. The decision was reached following a voice vote after lawmakers revisited the controversy surrounding the recent altercation between Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Senate leadership over seat allocation, with lawmakers underpinning the need to uphold parliamentary rules and decorum. In a motion raised under Order 1(b) and 10, condemning what he described as Akpoti-Uduaghan’s ‘extreme intransigence’ during the Senate session on February 20, Senate spokesperson, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, revived the saga on the floor, stating that ‘from that Thursday, the media was awash with this issue and I had to work on mending the perception of the 10th Senate. The Senate is not a platform for content creation but a place for lawmaking and oversight functions.’ He urged the Senate leadership to enforce discipline, warning that ‘Where there is sin, there must be a penalty.’ Supporting Adaramodu, the Senate leader, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, also weighed in, reaffirming the Senate’s commitment to its rules and internal order. According to him, ‘There is no one who does not have an opinion on this issue, but we are unified by our rules. Under our watch, we will not allow this institution to be discredited beyond what we inherited. Integrity is non-negotiable.’ He dismissed claims that the dispute was rooted in gender bias or discrimination, citing examples of senior senators who had accepted seat changes without protest. In response, the Senate President Godswill Akpabio directed the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to review the entire incident and report back to the chamber. Akpabio recalled that the Senate rules allow members to sit anywhere, but contributions must be made from their designated seats. He suggested that unfamiliarity with Senate procedures may have contributed to the altercation. He stated that ‘the first day she was sworn in, she stood up to contribute, and I was worried if she had even read the rule book. There is nothing wrong with being vibrant, but everything wrong with disobeying procedure.’ Citing Order 66(2) and Section 55 of Senate rules, he underscored that all senators must conduct themselves with decorum, including prohibitions on chewing gum, drinking water or being disruptive during sittings. ‘The rules empower the Senate President to suspend a senator for infractions for at least 14 days. It’s not me who made the rules, it’s in the rule book.'”

5. Dissatisfied with the Senate resolution, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had proceeded to Court to seek redress. According to a Nigerian Tribune report of 05 March 2025, “Joined as as first, second, third, and fourth defendants, respectively, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, in which the Kogi Central lawmaker is the applicant, are the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions, Senator Neda Imasuem”. On 05 March 2025, the Federal High Court issued an interim injunction restraining the Senate. In a report published under the title, “Court Stops Senate Disciplinary Action Against Natasha”, Channels TV reported that Hon “Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from conducting disciplinary proceedings against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.”. Part of the report read: “Justice Egwuatu issued the order following an ex parte application filed by counsel for Akpoti-Uduaghan, the lawmaker representing Kogi Central Senatorial District. Akpoti-Uduaghan had been invited to appear before the senate’s disciplinary committee following an altercation with Senate President Godswill Akpabio on February 20, 2025. According to the document, the Kogi senator prayed that the court grant an order restraining the Senate and its ethics committee from ‘proceeding with the purported investigation’ against her. Akpoti-Uduaghan asked the court to grant an order ‘declaring that any action taken during the pendency of this suit is null, void, and of no effect whatsoever’. The Kogi senator also prayed for a court order allowing the defendants to be served with the originating summons and other related documents through substituted means. ‘An order of this honourable court granting an Interim Injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant/Defendant’s Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct headed by the 4th Defendant from proceeding with the purported investigation against the Plaintiff/Applicant for alleged misconduct sequel to the events that occurred at the plenary of the 2nd Defendant on the 20th day of February, 2025, pursuant to the referral by the 2nd Defendant on 25th February, 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction,” a part of the application read. In his verdict, the presiding judge ruled that the defendants should come and show cause within 72 hours, upon the service of the order, why an interlocutory injunction should not be issued against them. Justice Egwuatu granted the prayer that the defendants should be served by substituted means. The judge adjourned the case to March 10, 2025, for the defendants to show why the applicant’s reliefs should not be granted.”

6. However, Professor of Law and former Speaker of the Kwara State House of Assembly, Ali Ahmad, faulted the interim injunction from courts stopping the National Assembly from performing its constitutional function. In a chat with Daily Trust in Lagos shortly after the injunction, Prof Ahmad said:

“It is unfortunate that the court has just issued an interim order stopping the Senate from performing its constitutional function. This is an aberration. Section 456 of the Constitution grants each of the arms of government its distinct powers, tadding, It’s wrong for an arm of government to purport to stop another arm from exercising its constitutionally donated powers, it cannot do that. When a court stops Senate from performing its constitutionally guaranteed powers, it’s not done anywhere, it’s just like the assembly and the executive passing a law and assenting the law, to say that the court cannot pass the judgement, that is unconstitutional or National Assembly passing a resolution that the president cannot sign a budget or cannot present a budget.These are presidential executive powers. Judicial powers, nobody can stop the judiciary, legislative powers of investigation under section 88, no court in the land can stop them. So if a court is now issuing an interim order to stop the ethics and privileges committee, I’m not saying what the Senate President did is good or not, I’m concerned about the powers of the legislature. This has gone far for too long. There have been several judgements, even in the Appeal Court, saying procedurally no court can stop the National Assembly from performing its legislative, investigative function especially in this matter when the investigation centres on another Senator. Our courts should be mindful of granting interim orders. It is an abuse of the judicial powers and it should stop. That is my honest opinion. Look at the Diezani (former Petroleum Minister) cases, the Senate wanted to investigate but she would rush to court for interim orders which are all unconstitutional, stopping the Senate, the National Assembly from performing its constitutionally mandated functions. We have said it but the courts continue to do that. Something should be done. No interim order can stop the National Assembly from performing its constitutionally mandated power in section 4. Judiciary purports to use its power under Section 6. Section 6 is not above section 4, neither are both sections above section 5. Sections 4, 5 and 6 are on the same plain.”_ [See: “Natasha: It’s an aberration for courts to stop Senate from performing its duty – Ex-Kwara Speaker”; 06 March 2025; Daily Trust]

7. One question arising from Prof Ali Ahmad’s suggestions is whether the Senate of the Federal Republic is entitled to disobey or flagrantly flout an order of a Court of law on the ground that the Senate believes that “no court can stop the National Assembly from performing its legislative, investigative function especially in this matter when the investigation centres on another Senator” or because the Senate thinks that “It’s wrong for an arm of government to purport to stop another arm from exercising its constitutionally donated powers”? The second question arising, is this: What is the proper course of conduct on the part of the Senate whenever the Senate feels that a Court of law has improperly issued a restraining order against the Senate?

8. With due respect, while I agree that “it’s wrong for an arm of government to purport to stop another arm from exercising its constitutionally donated powers”, I respectfully submit that the Senate of the Federal Republic is not entitled nor at liberty to disobey any order of a Court of law, however perverse or wrong or improper the Senate thinks the order is. Disobedience of a Court order is an act of grave contempt against the institution of administration of justice and an affront against the rule of law. The right step open to the Senate where it believes that an restraining order has been improperly made by a court against the Senate, is to take necessary legal steps to have such a restraining order set aside or otherwise vacated. Until the order is set aside or vacated, the Senate and every person or institution against whom the order is made, are bound by the order and must obey the order.

9. Rule of Law demands that all orders issued by a competent Court, unless and until set aside, overruled or otherwise repealed, must be obeyed to the letter. It’s immaterial that anyone or group thinks the order or orders are valid, invalid, or whatever. Ogundare, JSC, in the case of Rossek v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382 at pages 434-435 E-C had this to say: “A party, who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular cannot be permitted to disobey it….. It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves Judge whether an order was null or valid – whether it was regular or irregular…. As long as it existed it must not be disobeyed.” This view was re-echoed by Romer L.J in Hadkinson v. Hadkinson, (1952) 2 All ER 567 where he observed that “It is plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom an order is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void…. If that Court never had jurisdiction in the matter, then its decision is, without jurisdiction, void, but then should a Court of law not even decide the point? That is, the Court without jurisdiction decided without jurisdiction? Should the decision be ignored? Surely, it would not make for peace and finality which a decision of a Court seeks to attain. It would at least be against public policy for persons, without the backing of the Court, to pronounce a Court decision a nullity, act in breach of the decision whereas others may set out to obey it. In my respectful view it is not only desirable but necessary to have such decisions set aside first by another Court before any act is built upon it despite the colourful dictum of the law Lord in U.A.C. v. Macfoy (supra).” Generally, therefore, orders of a competent Court must be obeyed as long as they subsist, if the authority and administration of the Court are not to be brought into disrepute, scorn or disrespect. They remain binding on parties thereto until set aside by a superior Court of competent jurisdiction or declared null and void. Thus, once a party knows of the subsistence of an order of Court, whether valid or not and whether regular or irregular or even perverse, he is obliged to obey it. See Adebayo v. Johnson (1969) 1 All NLR 176; Aladegbemi v. Fasanmade (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.81) 129; Komolafe v. Omole (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.268) 213; Rossek v. African Continental Bank Ltd. (supra).” See also OSHIOMHOLE & ANOR V. FGN & ANOR (2004) LPELR-5188(CA), per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C ( Pp. 23-27, paras. E-C ). It is therefore submitted that the Senate has no right or power to disobey any order of a Court of law on the ground that the Court has no power to stop performance of Senate’s constitutional responsibility.

10. Again, even where NO express restraining order has been issued, the rule of law and the doctrine of LIS PENDENS require that a party who is aware of a pending application seeking injunctive reliefs against the party, is no longer entitled to take any further steps that could frustrate the pending matter or alter the status quo. Temitope Onabanjo wrote on DNLLEGALANDSTYLE, and I agree, as follows: “The meaning of lis pendens is – ‘a pending legal action’, wherein Lis means the ‘suit’ and Pendens means ‘continuing or pending’. The doctrine has been derived from a latin maxim ‘Ut pendent nihil innovetur’ which means that during litigation nothing should be changed”. Gbenga Ojo wrote: “Lis pendens denotes those principles and rules of law which define and limit the operation of the common law maxim, to the effect that nothing relating to the subject matter of a suit can be changed while the suit is pending”. [See: ”Defining the Scope and Limit of the Doctrine of Lis Pendens: Need for a Restatement of Principles” by Gbenga Ojo públished in The Gravitas Review of Business & Property Law, Vol.6 No.3 (Sept 2015)]. The implication of the aforesaid, in the instant case, is that NO arm or organ of the Senate was entitled to take any further steps in respect of the suit pending against the Senate unless and until the final determination thereof.

11. In the case of AKIBOYE V. ADEKO (2011) 6 NWLR (part 1244) 415, the Court of Appeal stated that the doctrine of lis pendens had evolved for the purpose of preventing one party from fraudulently seeking to overreach the decision of the court. However, for the doctrine to apply, the following mandatory conditions must be fulfilled: (I). That at the time of taking the action complained of, the suit regarding the dispute/subject was already pending. The doctrine of Lis pendens will apply only if the action was taken after the matter was already brought before the Court. In this instance, did the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan happen during the pendency of the suit Instituted by her against the Senate? (II). That the other party had been served with the originating processes in the pending action. Had the Senate been served with the Court processes as of the time the Senate suspended Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan? (III). That the action complained of relates to the subject of the dispute and is capable of overreaching the decision of the court in the suit. Does the subject matter of the matter that led to her suspension relate to or connected to the pending lawsuit? It’s respectfully submitted that, by virtue of the fact that the Senate itself and the Ethics Committee are parties to the pending lawsuit, the Senate and all its organs and arms were bound by both lis pendens and any outcome and legal implications or effects of the pending suit, even if the Court had not made any restraining order yet. In MILITARY GOVERNMENT OF LAGOS STATE V EMEKA ODUMEGWU-OJUKWU (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 621, (2001); (2001) FWLR (Part 50) 1779 at 1800, the Supreme Court stated as follows: “After a defendant has been notified with the pendency of a suit seeking an injunction against him, even though a temporary injunction be not granted, he (the defendant) acts at his own peril and subject to the power of the court to restore the status wholly irrespective of the merits as may be ultimately decided…. They [parties] have no right to take the matter into their own hands once the court was seised of it.”’ In the United States of America case of Porter v. Lee, 328 U.S. 246, at page 251, 66 S.Ct. 1096, at page 1099, 90 L. Ed. 1199, the court had declared that ‘where a defendant with notice in an injunction proceeding completes the acts sought to be enjoined the court may by mandatory injunction restore the status quo.’ See also Darnell Garcia v. John C. Lawn C.A.9 (Cal.) 1986 and Turney v. Shriver, 269 Ill. 164, 109 N.E. 708. In the case of Bello v. AG of Lagos State (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1017) pg.115, while the matter was still pending in court, the appellant did a publication in a newspaper in respect of the subject matter of the suit, the lower court held that the appellant (as applicant/plaintiff in the court below) was in contempt of court. The Court of Appeal in affirmed the decision of the lower court. See also Elf Marketing (Nigeria) Limited v. J. L. Oyeneyin And Sons Limited [1995] 7 NWLR (pt. 407) 371.” In PETER OBI V. INEC (SC No:2) [2007] Vol. 9 M.J.S.C 1, the Supreme Court said, “As at 14th April 2007 when the 1st respondent (Independent National Electoral Commission) was conducting gubernatorial election in Anambra State, the seat of the governor of that State was not vacant. That election was a wasteful and unnecessary exercise. The 1st respondent (INEC) was aware at that time that the appellant was in court pursuing his legal rights. A body that has respect for the rule of law, which the Independent National Electoral Commission ought to be, would have waited for the outcome of the court proceedings; particularly when it was aware of it.”

12. At this juncture, the question must be asked, WAS THE SENATE AWARE OF THE PENDING LAWSUIT, filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan? I think the answer is YES; the Senate was fully aware of the restraining order made against it on March by the Federal High Court. A 05 March 2025 report by BusinessDay Newspaper, published under the heading,, “Natasha’s sexual harassment petition dead on arrival – Senate”, had it that “The Senate has declared that the sexual harassment petition filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduagha against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is ‘dead on arrival,’ on two grounds as disclosed by Neda Imasuen, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions:

𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐎𝐧𝐞𝐝: The Petition contravened Senate rules as the petition was signed by Akpoti-Uduaghan herself. Senator Neda Imasuen cited Order 40, Subsection 4, which prohibits senators from presenting petitions signed by themselves, adding “No Senator may present to the Senate a petition signed by him or herself. That petition ought to have been presented by another Senator. That was not done, which is a direct contravention of our Rule Book.”

𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐰𝐨: Senator Neda Imasuen explained that “The allegations contained in the petition were already before a Court. That petition, for what you read on the floor and for what I’ve seen, is making some allegations that are already in court. It is the procedure of this committee that when a petition is before any law court, we do not touch such petitions”. Acknowledging that he had been served with legal documents from M.J. Numa and Partners, warning the Senate against intervening in the matter, Senator Neda Imasuen, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, stated further: “They have presented to me a motion and a rule order from the court attempting to stop this committee from doing its work. This is unacceptable. We should actually let the world know that there is what they call separation of powers in our Constitution.”

13. Two interesting facts emerge from Senator Neda Imasuen’s statements, above: (1). The Senator had been served with the Court processes in the case filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan; hence the Senate was fully aware of the pendency of the lawsuit. (2) As of 05 March 2025, the Senate had been served with a copy of the Federal High Court injunction restraining the Senate, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions and the Committee Chairman, from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduagha; hence, the Senate was fully aware of the restraining injunction against the Senate.

14. There’s a third, and even much more interesting takeaway from Senator Neda Imasuen’s statement; “It is the procedure of this committee that when a petition is before any law court, we do not touch such petitions”. This in effect means, judging by Senator Neda Imasuen’s own confessions, that the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions does not deal with any petition touching on any matter before a Court of law. 😂🤣🤣. Now look at these two scenarios:

𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞: Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan brought a Petition against the Senate President which petition was referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions. The Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions dismissed the petition as “dead on arrival” on grounds that “It is the procedure of this committee that when a petition is before any law court, we do not touch such petitions”.

𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐓𝐰𝐨: However, when the Senator passed a resolution bringing a complaint/petition against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan which petition was 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions proceeded to deal with the petition, and recommended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension which was immediately approved by the Senate vide a resolution passed on 06 March 2025. All these notwithstanding that the subject matter of the complaint against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was pending in court and notwithstanding that there was even a restraining order of court against both the Senate and the Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, which order had been duly served on the Senate and on the Committee. 😂🤣

15. Different strokes for similar situations; a convenient adherence to Lis Pendens; a lopsided respect for the rule of law; and a clear violation of Quod Approbo Non Reprobo. “Quod approbo non reprobo” is a Latin legal maxim which means “that which I approve, I cannot disapprove,” and it translates to the legal doctrine of “cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time,” meaning once you’ve chosen a course of action or position, you cannot later contradict it to gain an undue advantage. The doctrine signifies that after a person has asserted or acknowledged a particular stand or position, they cannot later choose a different one to gain benefit from both. In the present case, the Senate wouldn’t deal with Natasha’s petition because it’s about a matter that’s pending in court, but would readily deal with the complaint against Natasha even when it’s about a matter also pending in court and in respect of which there’s even a pending restraining order against the Senate, duly served on the Senate. 😂🤣. Rule of law in Nigeria, sorry.

16. To leave no one in doubt that the Senate was deliberate about its decision to flout the Court order, a report titled, “Senate defies Court order, sits on petition against Senator Natasha” by the Tribune Newspapers of 05 March 2025, went thus:

“The Senate on Wednesday rebuffed an enrolment order of the Federal High Court, which directed it to halt its investigation into a petition against the senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. Despite the court’s ruling, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions, led by Senator Neda Imasuem, proceeded with deliberations on the matter. Nigerian Tribune checks revealed that Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had granted an order of interim injunction restraining the Senate and its Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct from proceeding with the purported investigation against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. The court also granted “an order declaring that any action taken during the pendency of this suit is null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.” The case was adjourned to 10 March 2025. Joined as defendants in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, in which the Kogi Central lawmaker is the applicant, are the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions, Senator Neda Imasuem, listed as first, second, third, and fourth defendants, respectively. However, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petitions, Senator Imasuem who acknowledged the enrolment order, said the committee would not defer to the directive, insisting that no court has the power to interfere in the internal affairs of Parliament. He stated: “There is a separation of powers. As parliamentarians, we know what our rules say. What we do here isn’t subject to any court. The issue before us is alleged misconduct on the floor of the Senate. It isn’t subject to any court.”’

17. ON 06 MARCH 2025, SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN SUSPENDED DESPITE A PENDING COURT INJUNCTION: In a 06 March 2025 report published under the title, “UPDATED: Senate suspends Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months. The Senate also resolved to suspend Mrs Apoti-Uduagan’s salary and allowances while all her security aides would be withdrawn during the suspension period”, PremiumTimes reported:

“The Senate on Thursday [06 March 2025] suspended Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, for six months over alleged misconduct and refusal to comply with the chamber’s sitting arrangement during the plenary session on 20 February. The upper chamber, however, said if Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan submits a written apology, the leadership of the chamber may consider lifting the suspension before the six-month period expires. The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, announced the suspension of Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan after it was supported by a majority of senators during the plenary. The controversy began when Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan refused to occupy her new seat because it was done without her consent and she believes the action violated her privileges. Presenting the committee’s report, Mr Imasuen explained that the committee had reviewed the petition against Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan, taking into account the Nigerian Constitution, Senate standing rules, and principles of equity and justice. Mr Imasuen said both Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Publicity, Yemi Adaramodu, were invited to present their positions. However, while Mr Adaramodu honoured the invitation, Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan refused to appear, an act the committee considered disrespectful. He noted that the committee also took testimonies from multiple individuals, including Benue North-west Senator, Titus Zam, a Sergeant-at-Arms, Mukthar Daudawa, and head of Sergeant-at-Arms, Etido Ekpo, a retired brigadier general. He said they all testified against Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan. Following its findings, the committee recommended a six-month suspension for Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan with effect from 6 March with additional penalties, including withdrawal of all her security aides. The committee also recommended the closure of Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan’s office within the National Assembly and handover all Senate properties in her possession to the Clerk to the National Assembly.The panel also recommended prohibition from entering the National Assembly premises during the period of suspension and that her salaries and allowances should be suspended. The panel also recommended that the Kogi senator should be barred from representing herself as a senator both locally and internationally during the period of her suspension…. Ondo South SenatorJimoh Ibrahim seconded the motion recommending the suspension of Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan and other punitive measures taken against her…. The senate president then put the recommendations to a vote, and the majority of senators supported the suspension. The sergeant-at-arms, thereafter, walked Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan out of the chamber as she shouted “this injustice will not be sustained, the pursuit for justice…”

18. MERIT OF THE SUSPENSION OF SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN: This is not the subject of the present commentary. I do not question Senate’s power to discipline an erring Senator. This commentary is about the procedure adopted by the Senate in meting out such disciplinary measures.

19. 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐎𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐎𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐎𝐟 𝐍𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚 𝐒𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐚 𝐀𝐤𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐢-𝐮𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐡𝐚𝐧: From the legal principles and authorities discussed above, it’s my respectful opinion that the Senate resolution suspending Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduagha may not survive the test of the rule of law. As a preview of the fate probably awaiting such a resolution, let me refer to FOUR past but similar scenarios of flagrant disobedience of a Court order where the Court granted what I prefer to call DISCIPLINARY INJUNCTION to reverse preemptive actions taken by one of the parties during the pendency of a lawsuit and remedy the contemptuous situation; this type of order is usually made without the court considering the merits of the case:

𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞: “A breaking news in Nigeria on Monday, January 07, 2019, has it that a Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria, presided over by Hon Justice Kolawole Omotosho, on Monday nullified the direct and indirect primary elections allegedly conducted by two factions of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State. An online news medium, barristerNG.com, reports that the court order followed a suit filed by an APC governorship aspirant in Rivers State, Senator Magnus Abe. According to the presiding judge, both factions of the APC had acted in disrespect of a pending suit before a Port Harcourt High Court by purporting to have produced candidates for governorship, national and state assembly polls, while the suit was still pending. The judge accordingly declared that “both the direct and indirect primaries purportedly held by the APC in Rivers State are illegal and cannot stand in the face of the law.” The Federal High Court decision subsequently went up to the Supreme Court through the Court of Appeal…was later endorsed by the Supreme Court of Nigeria’_ [See: “Contempt of Court: Why Nigeria’s Federal High Court is Right on Rivers State APC” By Sylvester Udemezue;08 January 2025; BarristerNG]

𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐓𝐰𝐨: PremiumTimes’ report of 23 August 2022 had it that: “The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, reversed the suspension Joyce Oduah as Secretary General of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). On Tuesday, the judge set aside the action of the NBA’s National Executive Committee (NEC) on the grounds that it constituted an affront to the rule of law and overreaching court’s proceedings in the suit. Justice Mohammed, while ruling on an application filed and argued by Ayotunde Ogunleye on behalf of Mrs Oduah, held that the NBA-NEC which gave legal effect to the General Secretary’s suspension acted in ‘bad faith and in utter disregard for the proceedings of the court.’ The judge agreed with Mr Ogunleye that the ratification done on 21 August ought not to have been carried out by the NEC in view of the pendency of a suit challenging Mrs Oduah’s suspension. [The Judge] further said that ‘The purported ratification (of the General Secretary’s suspension) was not only an affront to the court but a denigration of the sanctity of the judiciary which on several occasions has been condemned by the Supreme Court of Nigeria… with or without express order of court, no party ought to have taken any further steps on the subject matter of the litigation. The judge said that the action of the NBA-NEC in relation to the unlawful ratification was “irritating, annoying, condemnable and liable to be set aside since the actors in the illegal ratification cannot claim ignorance of the position of law on such contemptuous attitude.” [ Read more: “Court nullifies suspension of NBA’s General Secretary, Joyce Oduah” PremiumTimes; 23 August 2022]

𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: In CHIBUIKE AMAECHI v. INEC (2008) 1 SCNJ 1; (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 (per PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JSC), the Supreme said: “The decision to substitute Celestine Omehia for Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi by the 3rd Respondent (P.D.P) during the period of pending suit on the gubernatorial election represents a display of very grave display of political rascality and an irresponsible and wanton disrespect for rule of law. No responsible person or group of persons who parade themselves as having respect for rule of law and due process, can be credited with such a dastardly act. The 1st Respondent, by acceding to the request of the 3rd Respondent for the substitution, has painted a picture of itself as a spineless body whose pre-occupation is dissemination of injustice. It (1st Respondent) has forgotten or it has thrown into the winds the position carved for it by the Constitution of the land -An unbiased umpire. Finally, on this point, I wish to say that in all countries of the world which operate under the rule of law, politics are always adapted to the laws of the land and not the laws to politics. Let our political operators allow this time-honoured principle to sink well into their heads and hearts.”

𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫: “A similar incident had played out in Osogbo, Osun State in 2010. The Plaintiffs (Alhaji Nasiru Oyeniyi, head of Gbaemu compound and Pa Claudious Fayoyiwa, head of Olu-Awooba compound, on behalf of Sogbo ruling House of Osogbo against the Oyetunji and the kingmakers) had filed both a Motion Ex Parte and a Motion on Notion, praying the Honourable High Court for an order of injunction, restraining all the defendants, including the then Governor of Osun State, from appointing anybody as the Ataoja of Osogbo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. However, while the case was adjourned to September 8, 2010 for hearing of the Motion on Notice, before the said adjourned date, and after having been duly served with all the processes, the Osun State Government went ahead and presented the Staff of office to Alhaji Jimoh Olanipekun, thereby installing him as the 16th Ataoja of Osogbo, in spite of the pending suit. On 18 February 2011, exactly five months and a week on the throne, the trial court presided over by His Lordship, Honourable Justice Yinka Aderibigbe, of an Osogbo High Court, brought down the curtain on the reign of the Oba Jimoh Olanipekun as the Ataoja of Osogbo, ordering him to vacate the throne immediately. Said the Court: ‘All the processes leading to the nomination of Jimoh Olanipekun to fill the vacant stool of the Ataoja of Osogbo through the purported Larooye royal house of Osogbo during the pendency of the suit and the motion for interlocutory injunction is hereby set aside. The selection of Olanipekun to fill the vacant stool of Ataoja of Osogbo by the kingmakers in the suit during the pendency of the suit and the motion for interlocutory injunction is hereby set aside. The approval and issuance of the instrument of office to Olanipekun as the Ataoja of Osogbo in September 2010 by Governor Oyinlola during the pendency of the suit and the motion for interlocutory injunction is hereby set aside,’ (vanguardngr.com, 2011).”_
[See: “Contempt of Court: Why Nigeria’s Federal High Court is Right on Rivers State APC” wherein I stated also, thus:

“In such cases of disregard for pending proceedings, what the courts will do and have always done is to undo what the defendant or respondent has proceeded to do in the meantime irrespective of the merits of the matter; an order of DISCIPLINARY INJUNCTION is granted to revert preemptive action taken by one of the parties to the pending lawsuit, and this is done without the court considering the merits of the case. See Ezegbu v. First African Trust Bank Limited (CA4) (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 220) 699; Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh & Co. (1972) 1 All NLR 283…. A final lesson one must take away from all these is that litigants and their lawyers alike who are involved in proceedings before courts of law must imbibe the appropriate manner of dealing with pending courts proceedings, court orders and the judiciary as a whole, bearing in mind what negative or disastrous consequences their contemptuous and disdainful conducts towards judicial officers and their orders may have on the litigants themselves, and on administration of justice and rule of law, without which democracy cannot survive”.

20. Finally, athough this is not the focus of the present commentary, one other serious question that may arise in the Senator Natasha AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN brouhaha is whether the Senate President (Godswill Akpabio) who was allegedly insulted, complained against and personally accused by Senator Natasha AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, was entitled to have presided over the trial and determination of the charge of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in view of the requirements of the twin pillars of natural justice, especially the rule of nemo judex in causa sua (one cannot be a judge in his own case). The query may further be raised whether the Senate President, in presiding over the case, has not turned himself a judge in his own case, he being the COMPLAINANT, the PROSECUTOR and ARBITER (judge) all at the same time? In Danladi Kachia v. Zaria L A 1969 N.N.L.R. 82, the Court had this to say: “This allegation, in our view, goes beyond contempt of court but constitutes an imputation that may harm the reputation of the judge. …. It is personal to the judge. In our view the judge was therefore personally interested in the case and was therefore debarred from hearing the case…. We cannot envisage a case that would give raise to a higher reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the accused than the present one. He was accused of defaming the judge who tried him and convicted him virtually of that offence. We must allow the appeal on this ground. The appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentences are set aside” See also ABIEGBE V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE AFRICAN CHURCH [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 366; In AGBACHOM V. THE STATE (1970)1 All NLR 69, the Court of Appeal stated that “Where a man’s liberty is at stake, every requirement of the law must be strictly complied with.” See BOYO V. A. G. MID-WESTERN STATE (1971)1 All NLR 342 at 35. While I will defer fuller discussions on this aspect, it’s important to suggest that in determining the legal propriety or otherwise of Senator Godswill Akpabio presiding over the trial and suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in this particular case, regard may be heard to dictum of Lord Denning, MR, in the English case of R. V. AMBER VALLEY DC, EX PARTE JACKSON [1985] 1 WLR 298, [1984] 3 All ER 50), referred to with approval in the Nigerian case of ZAMAN V. STATE (2015) LPELR-24595(CA): “The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless if right-minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. and if he does sit, his decision cannot stand”. It is irrelevant whether he was in fact biased, because justice is rooted in [public] confidence”.
Respectfully,
§¢µð𝓮̂𝓶𝓮̂𝔃µ𝓮̂
Sylvester Udemezue (udems).
Legal Practitioner, Law Teacher, and the Proctor of The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM) [A Nonaligned, Nonprofit Public Interest Law Advocacy Group]
08021365545
[email protected]
(07 March 2025)