A Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the power of the Senate to discipline any member for unethical conduct. In a judgment delivered on Friday, Justice Binta Nyako held that under the Senate Rules, the Senate President is empowered to allocate seats for members, and such members are only allowed to speak from their designated seats.
The court’s decision came in a suit filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who challenged her six-month suspension from the Senate. Justice Nyako found that Akpoti-Uduaghan was not speaking from her allocated seat during the Senate’s sitting on February 20, and therefore, was not entitled to be heard. Although the court upheld the Senate’s power to discipline its members, it urged the Senate to reconsider the period of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension and consider recalling her to allow her to represent her constituency.
In a related development, Justice Nyako found Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt for violating a court order made on April 4, which restrained parties from commenting on the subject matter of the pending suit. The judge held that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s satirical letter posted on her Facebook page on April 27 constituted contempt of court. As a result, the court fined her N5 million, which she is required to pay to the Federal Government’s coffers. Additionally, Akpoti-Uduaghan was ordered to publish a public apology in two national dailies and on her Facebook page within seven days.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central in the Senate, had approached the court to restrain the Senate from taking disciplinary actions against her pending the hearing of a suit against the Senate leadership. Despite the court’s order, the Senate went ahead to suspend her for six months. The court had granted her request on March 4 and summoned the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions to appear before it. However, the Senate proceeded with the suspension on March 5, prompting Akpoti-Uduaghan to seek judicial intervention.
The court’s decision has significant implications for the Senate’s power to discipline its members. While the judgment affirms the Senate’s authority to take disciplinary actions, it also highlights the need for such actions to be reasonable and proportionate. The court’s urging of the Senate to reconsider Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension suggests that the judiciary will continue to play a crucial role in ensuring that the Senate’s disciplinary powers are exercised fairly and in accordance with the law.
