JUSTICE BINTA NYAKO’S JUDGMENT: A TALE OF TWO ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE BY SENATOR AKPABIO, NATASHA

A LAYMAN’S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING HON. JUSTICE BINTA NYAKO’S JUDGMENT – A TALE OF TWO ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE: SENATOR NATASHA DISOBEYED THE SENATE RULES, AKPABIO DISOBEYED THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION (SENATOR NATASHA’S MISDEMEANOUR VS. AKPABIO’S FELONY)

BY TONYE CLINTON JAJA

A lot of commentaries have been written by lawyers on the true meaning of the judgment of the 4th July, 2025 that was delivered by Hon. Justice Binta Nyako.

In this write-up, I will attempt to use simple, plain English language to explain the said judgment to non-lawyers or laypersons.

As with other of my write-ups, it is part of my public legal education series on issues of legislative law.

Under Paragraph 2 of the said judgment, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako stated as follows: “Thus an Order is hereby made for the plaintiff to pay a fine in the sum of ₦5m to the Federal Government Treasury and to publish a public apology to the Court in two National Dailies and on her Facebook page within seven days to purge herself of the contempt”!!! (Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and her lawyers have filed an appeal against this aspect of the said judgment, they believe it is not lawful)!!!

Paragraph 7 of the judgment of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako states in part as follows: “That I also find that the Senate Rules is superior to the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act by virtue of Section 20 thereof”. This is one part of the judgment that has stirred conflicting interpretation.

For the avoidance of any doubts, let me reproduce section 20 of the said Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018 which states as follows: “The powers of the President or Speaker, or Chairman of a Committee of a Legislative House conferred by this Act shall be supplementary to any powers conferred on him by the Constitution, or by Standing orders.”

This I believe is one of the grounds of appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako.

The legislation clearly stated that the Senate Rules (Standing Orders of the Senate, 2023) are SUPPLEMENTARY (AND NOT SUPERIOR) to the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018.

My suspicion is that either Paragraph 7 is a typographical error or it was mischievously inserted to favour Senate President Akpabio and the Senate (Defendants)!!!

As evidence of the foregoing, under Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the same judgment, Hon. Binta Nyako then makes statements that directly contradict the assertion in the said Paragraph 7.

Under Paragraph 10 it is stated as follows:

“That to suspend a member for a period of six months equals to a suspension of 180 days and is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House representing his people. That I find this excessive and overreaching noting that it will prevent a member from complying with Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution”.

Paragraph 11 reads in part as follows: “Senate has power to review provisions of the Senate Rules and can even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018.”

From the foregoing, it is clear that, Hon. Binta Nyako did not intend to state as it appears under Paragraph 7 of the said judgment that the Senate Rules are SUPERIOR to the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018.

In view of the contents of Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment, if the Senate Rules are SUPERIOR to the said Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018, why would Hon. Binta Nyako go ahead to denounce the same Senate Rules for its violation of Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution as she did under Paragraph 10 of the same judgment.

More importantly, why would she under Paragraph 11 of the said judgment also then ask the Senate to review the same Senate Rules, if the said Senate Rules are SUPERIOR to the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018? Then automatically its provisions would have been deemed to over-ride the provisions of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018. Anyway, that is a question that hopefully the Court of Appeal would answer.

The summary of this judgment as it pertains to Senate President, His Excellency Godswill Obot Akpabio (GOA) and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan are as follows:

1. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment shows that Senate President Akpabio violated Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution by imposing a suspension of six months upon Senator Natasha. In the hierarchy of crimes in Nigeria, a violation of the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution is regarded as a much more serious crime than the alleged offence of contempt committed by Senator Natasha as stated under Paragraph 2 of the said judgment.
2. Akpabio is deemed to have committed a felony by his violation of Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution, whereas Senator Natasha is deemed to have committed a misdemeanour!!!;
3. In the event that the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is an institution that abides by and STRICTLY enforces the Nigerian Constitution, the implications of Akpabio’s felony is that his seat is to be declared vacant for his failure to comply with Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution.

Also, the seat of the Deputy Senate President could also have been declared vacant for his violation of the same Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution. This is evident by reading the attendance register of the Senate since May 2024. The Deputy Senate President has failed to comply with the 181 days attendance requirement because he is a full-time member of the Parliament of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). At one point he even served as the Acting Speaker of the Parliament of ECOWAS. This involves his frequently traveling to the 13 countries of the ECOWAS to attend the parliamentary sessions of the ECOWAS PARLIAMENT. This in itself is a violation of Section 68 of the Nigerian Constitution which states that no member of the Senate or House of Representatives should concurrently hold membership of any other legislature (such as the ECOWAS PARLIAMENT).

Again, if the Senate was an institution that strictly abides by the Nigerian Constitution and its own Standing Orders, by now there would have been an election of one Senator to occupy the position of pro tempore President of the Senate in accordance with Order 22 of the said Senate Rules.

4. The election of a Pro Tempore President of the Senate as prescribed under Order 22 of the Senate Rules would have been a measure to ensure that the Senate President complies with Paragraph 10 of the judgment of Hon. Binta Nyako which states that fulfilment of Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution is superior, paramount and more important than any provisions of either the Senate Rules and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018. This is so because the Senate President, just like any other Senator is required to sit for a minimum of 181 days within any legislative year. From the available records as gleaned from the attendance register of the Senate, since May 2024, Senate President has failed to comply with this requirement. And his recent engagement as a Prosecution Witness for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would make it further difficult for the Senate President to comply with Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution.

On a final note, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako has clearly ruled in her judgment that Senate has to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in order for both herself and the Senate not to be in violation of Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution which is the most superior law of Nigeria.

Recall that Hon. Justice Binta Nyako has earlier under paragraph 10 of her judgment emphasised that STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 63 OF THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.

SECTION 63 OF THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION STATES THAT EVERY SENATOR (AND NIGERIAN LEGISLATOR) MUST SIT FOR A MINIMUM OF 181 DAYS WITHIN ANY LEGISLATIVE YEAR.

ANY INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON. BINTA NYAKO THAT ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT SENATOR NATASHA FROM RESUMING HER DURY AS A SENATOR AND THEREBY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF HER DAYS OF SITTING TO LESS THAN THE 181 DAYS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 63 OF THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION IS ILLOGICAL AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY!!!

For the avoidance of any doubts, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako states in her judgment, paragraph 12 states as follows: “Senate has powers to and I believe should recall the plaintiff (Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan) and allow her resume representing the people…”.

As a general rule, judgments are read as a whole not piecemeal.

Therefore, by a combined reading of the paragraphs of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako’s judgment, it is evident that her paramount OVER-RIDING PUBLIC INTEREST was for Senator Natasha to return, resume at the Senate with immediate effect so as to continue to provide the duty to her constituents and also so as not to violate Section 63 of the Nigerian Constitution by failure to comply with the 181 attendance requirement.

On her part, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has complied with the said judgment by appealing against the portions that she disagrees with.

The President of the Senate and the other defendants can also demonstrate their compliance by allowing Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to resume her duties at the Senate as soon as possible.

Alternatively, the said Senate President and the defendants can submit an appeal against the said judgment if they disagree with Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s resumption!!!

Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja is reputed as the first Nigerian recipient of PhD in Legislative Law from the University of London
The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not represent the opinion of CITY LAWYER or its publishers

____________________________________________________________________

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply