BY DAYO FADUGBA

Some media commentaries and legal punditry have suggested, rather inaccurately, that the Federal High Court, Abuja, per Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, made a binding order mandating the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan following her suspension. Having obtained the full judgement from the court yesterday, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the court made more profound statements over the matter than we initially thought.

As a continuation of my earlier publication on this matter having obtained the full judgement, I find it necessary, indeed imperative, to revisit the actual words and reasoning of Justice Nyako in her judgment delivered on July 4, 2025, in Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. Clerk of the National Assembly & 3 Ors, to lay to rest these persistent misconceptions.

The first and perhaps most important point that must be reiterated is that Justice Binta Nyako made no binding order mandating the recall of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate chamber before the expiration of the six month’s suspension. At no point in the judgment did the court issue a declaratory or injunctive order nullifying the suspension or compelling the Senate to reinstate the Senator before the six month’s expiration.

Rather, the court made an obiter observation, a judicial aside – that called attention to the proportionality of the suspension vis-à-vis the number of legislative sitting days in a calendar year. The learned judge opined that if a legislative year spans 181 days, a six-month suspension covering 180 days may be excessive and possibly contrary to the spirit of legislative representation. However, such commentary, however persuasive, does not amount to a binding pronouncement or mandatory directive.

What truly constitutes the ratio decidendi, the legal reasoning that binds – of the judgment is the court’s resounding affirmation of the Senate’s constitutional authority to regulate its internal affairs, including disciplining its members, pursuant to Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The court rightly observed that Senator Natasha was referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions for alleged unparliamentary conduct on the floor of the Senate on 20th February, 2025. This referral was made in accordance with the Senate Standing Orders 2023, particularly Orders 13 and 14. Notably, despite being formally invited to defend herself before the Committee, the Senator chose to file a suit in court instead.

The court then reaffirmed the long-standing principle of separation of powers, citing the authoritative decisions in AG of Bendel v. AG Federation & 22 Ors and Unongo v. Aku, to underscore that courts will not interfere in the internal workings of the legislature unless there is a clear constitutional breach or violation of fundamental rights. The court emphasized that such interference would amount to judicial overreach.

Moreover, the judgment referenced the case of Senator Ali Ndume v. President of the Senate & Ors, where the Federal High Court held that the Senate has the power to discipline its members, provided due process and fair hearing are observed. Justice Nyako concluded that the Senate’s invitation to the Plaintiff to appear before its Ethics Committee was a manifestation of procedural fairness, not a breach of it.

Perhaps the most striking pronouncement of the court, which many conveniently ignore, is the declaration that “there exists no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the Defendants contravened a statutory or constitutional provision.” The Senator’s suit was found to be purely an attempt to shield herself from the consequences of parliamentary disciplinary processes under the guise of judicial protection.

In a powerful statement, Justice Nyako concluded that Section 36(1) of the Constitution does not envisage judicial review of every utterance or internal deliberation made during legislative plenary. If courts were to wade into every such matter, “this Honourable Court would know no rest,” she rightly remarked.

In light of the above, the public must disregard narratives that portray the judgment as a judicial indictment of the Senate’s disciplinary powers. There was no order of recall, no declaration of the unconstitutionality of the suspension, and certainly no finding that the Senate violated any law.

Justice Binta Nyako did not nullify the suspension. If anything, she reaffirmed the Senate’s authority and the judiciary’s constitutional restraint in matters of internal legislative regulation. Those who argue otherwise do so either out of ignorance or mischief.

The judgment is a powerful testament to constitutionalism, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the sanctity of legislative independence.

I rest my case.

• Dayo Fadugba is an Abuja based legal 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

____________________________________________________________________

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.