NATASHA: ON THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF JUSTICE BINTA NYAKO’S JUDGMENT

IN THE CASE OF SENATOR NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN VS THE SENATE AND OTHERS

BY CASMIR OJUKWU

I. INTRODUCTION

The judgment of Hon. Justice Binta Nyako delivered on 4th July 2025 at the Federal High Court, Abuja, has sparked widespread public discourse, particularly concerning her Lordship’s observations on the six-month suspension imposed on Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In her pronouncement, Justice Nyako expressed an opinion that a six-month suspension, which equates to approximately 180 days, effectively deprives constituents of representation throughout the minimum number of sitting days required annually under Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Her Lordship further suggested that the Senate may consider reviewing its Standing Orders and Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018.

This write-up seeks to address the critical legal issue: Do these judicial observations constitute a binding order requiring the Senate to recall the suspended senator, or are they merely obiter dicta, non-binding judicial commentary?

II. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1. 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended)

Section 60: Empowers the Senate to regulate its own procedure, including disciplinary processes for erring members.

Section 63: Requires the National Assembly to sit for not less than 181 days in a calendar year, ensuring representation.

2. Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018

Section 14(2): Provides that a legislative house may suspend a member for misconduct but does not prescribe a maximum suspension period.

3. Senate Standing Orders

These Orders provide the framework for internal disciplinary procedures, including suspensions, in line with constitutional and statutory authority.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

A. Nature of the Judge’s Remarks

From the judgment:

“That to suspend a member for a period of 6 months equals to a suspension for 180 days… I find this excessive and overreaching…”

“That the Senate has the power to and I believe should recall the Plaintiff…”

These statements reflect judicial concern and advice regarding the policy implications and proportionality of a lengthy suspension but do not constitute operative or binding orders of the court.

B. Doctrine of Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dictum

The Nigerian judiciary draws a clear line between:

Ratio decidendi: The binding legal rule or principle forming the basis of a judgment.

Obiter dicta: Remarks made in passing, not necessary for the resolution of the case, and therefore not binding.

The Supreme Court held in Ogunbiyi v. State (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 605) 512 that:

“It is the ratio decidendi of a case that is binding on lower courts, not the obiter dictum, however tempting they may be.”

Similarly, in Ocheja Emmanuel Dangana v. Hon. Atai Aidoko Ali Usman (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1349) 50 at 89:

“Statements made by a judge which are not necessary for the decision, however sound they may be, are to be regarded as obiter dicta and are not binding.”

C. Absence of Relief Seeking Nullification of Suspension

It is trite law that courts may only grant reliefs specifically sought by a claimant. In this instance, from the originating process, Senator Natasha did not seek a declaratory or injunctive relief nullifying the six-month suspension. From the reliefs sought, the Hon. Judge, therefore, could not have made (and did not make) a binding order directing her recall.

This position was affirmed in A-G. Federation v. Atiku Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1:

“A court of law is not a Father Christmas; it can not grant a party what was not asked for.”

IV. RELEVANT CASE LAW ON THE SENATE’S DISCIPLINARY POWERS

A. Senator Ali Ndume v. Senate President & Ors (2018) Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/551/2017

Senator Ndume challenged his suspension for 90 legislative days. The Federal High Court, per Justice Babatunde Quadri, held in his favour and nullified the suspension, but the court did not deny the Senate’s power to discipline its members. Instead, it found that the duration of the suspension offended his right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution.

However, the Court of Appeal in Senate President & Ors v. Ndume (unreported CA/A/839/2017) later??? held that the Senate indeed has inherent powers to discipline members even where such powers are not specifically codified, provided that constitutional safeguards are observed.

B. Senator Ovie Omo-Agege v. Senate & Ors (2018) Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/314/2018

The Federal High Court (Hon. Justice Nnamdi Dimgba) ruled that the Senate had the power to refer a member to the appropriate committee designed for disciplinary measures. However, recommending punishment by the committee simply because the Plaintiff sought access to court was unconstitutional. Therefore, any punishment meted out based upon that would be set aside. This decision was never appealed by the defendants.

Notably, subsequent legal and academic opinion (which and which???) has favoured the Ndume appellate position which affirms that the Senate can suspend members in line with its internal rules and pursuant to Section 60 of the Constitution, provided that procedural fairness is ensured.

V. CONCLUSION

Justice Binta Nyako’s remarks on the length and consequences of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension are not binding judicial orders. They constitute obiter dicta, are advisory in nature, and do not compel the Senate to recall the Senator.

The operative part of the judgment upheld the Senate’s power to discipline its members, a position consistent with Section 60 of the Constitution, the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2018, the Senate Standing Orders, and judicial decisions in the Ndume and Omo-Agege cases.

Unless and until a court expressly nullifies the suspension or compels the Senate to act, Senator Natasha’s suspension remains valid in law. The Senate CAN ONLY RECALL HER BEFORE THE SIX MONTH’S SUSPENSION EXPIRES BASED ON THEIR DISCRETION

VI. RECOMMENDATION

If Senator Natasha or any other stakeholder had sought to contest the duration or effect of the suspension, the proper legal course would have been to file a fresh suit seeking specific declaratory and injunctive reliefs targeting the suspension or its proportionality.

In the absence of such relief and a judicial pronouncement or a voluntary policy decision by the Senate to amend its rules (which is ongoing), or to reduce the suspension, the Judge’s comments remain advisory and cannot form the basis of enforcement.

It is noteworthy that Senator Natasha has appealed against the order to apologize and pay a fine of ₦5 million. The Senate can cross-appeal on the partial dismissal of some of their preliminary objections, and the decision of the Court to have proceeded with the substantive suit after finding her liable for contempt of court through her commentary when the matter was subjudice. That appears to be a grave procedural error.

Ojukwu is a lawyer and public affairs analyst
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