A Federal High Court in Abuja has affirmed the power of the Senate to discipline any member for unethical conduct.
In a judgment on Friday on a suit filed by Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan challenging her six-month suspension from the Senate, Justice Binta Nyako, held that, under the Senate Rules, the Senate President is empowered to allocate seats for members and such a member is only allowed to speak from the seat allocated to him or her.
Justice Nyako found that, since Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was not speaking from the seat allocated to her during the Senate’s sitting of February 20, she was not entitled to be heard and held that, although the Senate has the power to discipline and could suspend its members, it should reconsider the period of such suspension.
She urged the Senate to consider recalling her to allow her to represent her constituency and for her to also apologise to the Senate.
Earlier, Justice Nyako found the embattled Senator guilty of contempt and fined her N5 million to be paid to the coffers of the Federal Government.
The judge found Natasha to have violated an order of the court made on April 4 restraining parties from commenting on the subject of the pending suit.
The judge held that by posting a satirical letter on her Facebook page on April 27 while the April 4 order subsisted, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was in contempt of court
She said since Natasha is found guilty of contempt in a civil case, thereby making it civil contempt, she would not be sent to prison but, made to pay a fine and offer a public apology to the court.
Justice Nyanko ordered Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to pay N5million to the coffers of the Federal Government and publish a public apology in two national dailies and her Facebook page within seven days.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan had, in the suit marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, joined the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate President, and Senator Neda Imasuem, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.
The Kogi lawmaker had, through her lead counsel, Mr. Jubril Okutekpa, SAN, urged the court to invalidate her suspension which she said was done in disobedience to a valid court order.
However, the defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court to meddle in what they considered an internal affair of the Senate.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central in the Senate had approached the court to restrain the Senate from taking any disciplinary actions against her pending the hearing of a suit against the leadership of the Senate.
The court granted the request on March 4, and summoned the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions amongst others to appear before the court in respect of the matter. However, the Senate went ahead to suspend Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months on the following day, March 5.
At the hearing of the matter on April 4, Justice Nyako barred Akpabio, Akpoti-Uduaghan, as well as their respective lawyers, from speaking with the media on the substantive issue and fixed May 12 for the hearing of all pending applications.
However, the Senate President who is the 3rd defendant in the suit, on May 5 brought an application seeking an order of court, directing the suspended senator to delete the viral satirical letter from her Facebook page and also tender an apology to the court for violating the order barring her from speaking with the media.
Responding, Akpoti-Uduaghan in a counter-affidavit filed on May 8, submitted that it was the third defendant who, through his legal representatives, Chief Olisa Agbakoba and Monday Ubani, both SANs, violated the orders of the court.
In defending the satirical letter, the plaintiff argued that, whereas the issue before the court centred on her alleged unlawful suspension, her letter addressed to Akpabio and not the court was on her alleged sexual harassment by the Senate president.
In a 28-paragraph affidavit, the Kogi Senator accordingly urged the court to reject the application for being incompetent since it was aimed at gagging her right to freedom of expression and frustrating the hearing in her suit before the court.
“The letter under reference was not addressed to the court, had no nexus with the subject matter before the court when construed side-by-side with the issues for determination and the relief sought.
“It is our submission that this application is an affront to the authority and majesty of the court.
The application is simply an attempt to change the normative of the case from the substance therein. The sole objective of the application is to foist an adjournment on the court in a bid to further delay the determination of this matter on the merits,” she added.
Nigerian Tribune
