News

Why court can’t void Senate’s suspension of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan

Published

12 months ago

July 4, 2025

Whirlwindnews

By Ken Harries Esq

The foundation of constitutional democracy across Europe and America has been deliberately built over the centuries on the strict and faithful adherence to the principle of separation of powers which demands respect for the autonomy of each arm of government.

Therefore, The Nigerian federation, as an entity which practices constitutional democracy has expressly provided in Section 4, 60 and 101 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) that the Legislature of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the constitutional authority to regulate its internal affairs, including the protection of the sanctity of its established procedures and practices, and discipline members whose conduct (or misconduct) attempt to desecrate the solemn norms of the hallowed chambers.

In the exercise of the constitutional powers and authority of the National Assembly as an arm of government, the Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, was suspended on 25th day of February,2025 following her ignominious display of crass disrespect to parliamentary rules, and her misconduct on the floor of the Senate. That despicable act of gross abuse of parliamentary privilege by the suspended Kogi Central Senator, which was not only witnessed by the Nigerian public, including the innocent young students who were all seated in the Senate gallery for the purposes of learning the ethics/etiquettes of standard parliamentary practices, sadly became an obscene piece of destructive cinematic content circulated across the world via the internet and other media platforms to vent avoidable damage on the fragile public image of Nigeria in the comity of Nations.

That overwhelming resolution by the Senate which approved the suspension was actually well founded upon the enormity of the ethical breaches by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and the negative impact of same on the institution of the Senate. The Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions painstakingly followed due process in the exercise of its assignment of investigation on the matter.

The detailed records of the committee had clearly confirmed that there was strict adherence to the standard procedures.The constitutional right to fair hearing was upheld and she was afforded adequate opportunity to respond and to defend the case against her, and it was upon the conclusion of all the processes that a case of gross misconduct was established and then recommendations approving her suspension were subsequently adopted by the Senate in plenary session.

In defiance of the laid down practice and procedure of the Senate as an institution , the Senator hastily initiated an action in the High Court, and the court was misled in the process to issue an interim order restraining the institution of the Senate from performing its constitutional functions in proceeding with its internal investigation. That interim order which became a subject of review offends settled constitutional principles.

Again, under Nigeria’s constitutional democracy,the judiciary, empowered under Section 6 of the Constitution to perform its functions, is not imbued with powers to interfere or usurp the legislative functions/powers granted to the National Assembly under Section 4, and therefore cannot interfere with the duly established internal disciplinary procedures of the legislature provided for in Sections 60 and 101.

Worthy of note is the fact that comparative constitutional jurisprudence also effectively supports the established position that the courts or judiciary, as a separate arm of government, have no powers to interfere or derail the functioning of the legislature. In the United States of America, Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution empowers the legislative houses (the Senate and the Congress) with exclusive jurisdiction to discipline their members whether by means of suspension, expulsion or even a fine.

The House Committee on Ethics in Congress may issue reprimands, censures, and other disciplinary measures without judicial interference. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, which operates an unwritten constitution, the Parliament (House of Commons and House Lords) draws its powers to regulate its own proceedings and discipline its own members from the Common Law and Statutes, particularly Article 9 of the Bills of Rights 1689 which expressly stipulates amongst others that “… proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

It is founded upon this law that a member of the British Parliament can be suspended or disciplined in accordance with their internal rules.

Back in our clime, perhaps in consonance with global best practice of constitutional democracies, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in a settled judicial precedent had long upheld the doctrine of the non-justiciability in respect of established internal legislative proceedings of the National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives). The courts cannot therefore interfere with the legislature in the performance of their assigned constitutionally functions and powers to self-regulate itself as an institution in the discipline of its members. In fact, anything to the contrary would only be a recipe for anarchy and instability in our legislative houses both at the national and sub-national levels.

In the considered view of a respected Professor of Law, Ali Ahmad, a renowned constitutional law expert who also possesses requisite cognitive experience as a former lawmaker, an interim order of a court lacks the constitutional current to halt or disrupt the powers of National Assembly in the exercise of its core functions as established under the community assemblage of Sections 4, 60 and 101 of the Constitution.

As a matter of judicial construction, Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria operate on equal footing; absolutely none is superior to the other. Therefore, any judicial attempt to restrain the legislature from executing its powers amounts to a violation of the time-honored principle of separation of powers.

Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claim that her suspension was retaliatory, allegedly due to accusations against the Senate President, is, at best, a watery face-saving and misleading narrative,unsupported by any shred of evidence or the documented proceedings. The suspension followed due process under the Senate’s Standing Orders, and certainly not a violation of her fundamental rights. Her decision to ignore the Senate Committee’s invitation and instead resort to social media and the courts undermines the principle of parliamentary accountability.

In conclusion, the Senate acted within its constitutional and procedural authority. The judiciary lacks the jurisdiction to invalidate or interfere with the Senate’s internal disciplinary processes. Any attempt to do so would be tantamount to judicial overreach and a breach of Nigeria’s constitutional order.

The Doctrine of the Separation of Powers must be respected and preserve.

*Ken Harries Esq is an Abuja-based Lawyer and Development Communication Strategist.

Share this story:

News

ADC spits fire! Demands arrest of Lifu *Says, Abuja judge, playing with fire!

Published

24 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Whirlwindnews

“He is running in contempt of the court. Justice Lifu should be arrested because he is acting in contempt of the court which is a criminal act,” were the exact words with which the African Democratic Congress (ADC), demonstrated its angst over the court ruling on Monday, ordering its de-registration as a political party in Nigeria.

A furious Bolaji Abdullahi, spokesman of the party, told his host while appearing as a guest on Monday’s edition of Politics Today, a public affairs programme on Channels Television that the judge of the Abuja Federal High Court who gave the order was actually playing with fire because of the consequences.

Directly accusing him of playing the script of the All Progressives Congress (APC), to ensure that President Bola Tinubu emerged the sole candidate for the 2027 presidential election, the party spokesman, was emphatic that the plan would not work, as head or tail, ADC must be on the ballot in all the elections.

Hear him: “There is a Court of Appeal order saying don’t hear this case until October 27. So, on what basis? You can’t place something on nothing. The Court of Appeal said don’t act on this until I hear it on October 27. So, on what basis did he deliver the judgement

“So, for us in the African Democratic Congress, what we’re convinced and they know is what they have done has no leg to stand on legally. What they want to do is to create doubts in the minds of the people that this ADC has too many legal cases, can we actually run on this? And to distract us. But we’re not distracted.

“We’re very clear. It was in spite of all they have done since ADC came on board that we ran one of the best and one of the most comprehensive direct primaries in the history of democracy in Nigeria. So, we are strong enough to withstand this. And that’s why I’m saying that we are going to contest in 2027. We’re ADC. We don’t buckle before dictatorship.”

Stressing on the implication of the judgement, which also affected Accord Party (AP), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) for allegedly failing to meet constitutional and electoral performance requirements, following a suit by the National Forum of Former Legislators, he said it portended grave danger.

He added: “We are not surprised. We know that the Nigerian people believe that there is a problem with the judiciary, but what we did not expect is the level of judicial rascality that was demonstrated today.

“What we are saying is that we reject it in its totality, and we are saying that the people behind this are playing with fire. Hundreds, if not thousands, have obtained nomination forms and contested elections and emerged as candidates on the platform of the ADC.”

Share this story:

News

Deregistration of ADC: Don’t destroy democracy, Obi warns judiciary

Published

1 day ago

June 16, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Peter Obi, candidate of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), in the 2027 presidential election, is peeved at the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ordering the de-registration of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), saying the move is a heavy blow and dangerous to Nigeria’s democracy.

Justice Peter Lifu, who made the order, based on an action brought by National Forum of Former Legislators, agreed that the parties, including Accord Party (AP), Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), failed to meet the requirement for continued existence in Nigeria.

But Obi, who left the ADC coalition to join the NDC, incidentally, based on what he explained resulted from the multiple court cases hanging on its neck, expressed his disenchantment, in a statement by the Peter Obi Media Reach (POMR), on Monday.

Signed by Ibrahim Umar, its spokesman, the group quoted the former Governor of Anambra State as decrying the growing damage to the nation’s sacred institutions on the altar of politics.

Stressing that the rise of nations depended on stronger institutions devoid of political influences, the 2023 Labour Party presidential candidate, wrote on his X platform: “When the controversy surrounding the removal of the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, unfolded, I expressed a concern to a friend: that the greatest damage might not be immediate, but the message it sends about the sanctity and independence of our institutions to the world.

“Strong economies are built on trust. Investors can manage security risks, policy risks, and even market risks. What they fear most is uncertainty in the rule of law and a judiciary that is perceived to be vulnerable to political pressure.

“Today, many Nigerians have lost confidence in systems that should protect them. Businesses increasingly request that their contracts be governed by foreign jurisdictions because they have greater confidence in those institutions than in our own. That should concern every patriot.

“We must never sacrifice our sacred institutions on the altar of politics. Nations rise when institutions are stronger than individuals. The Federal High Court judgment ordering the deregistration of the ADC and other political parties is just one of those activities that further reduces the common man’s trust in our legal systems. It should be reversed.

“I pledge that we will restore the dignity, independence, and integrity of the judiciary. The common man must have a voice. The business community must be protected from legal uncertainty and intimidation. Justice must be impartial, accessible, and respected by all. To our judges, legal luminaries, senior advocates, and lawyers: this is your moment. Rise, defend the rule of law, take back your country! A new Nigeria is POssible.”

Share this story:

News

Cape Verde stuns global pundits with barren draw against Spain

Published

1 day ago

June 16, 2026

Whirlwindnews

Not even Lamine Yamal’s second half introduction could help Spain break through the defence of debutants, Cape Verde, in their first ever meeting, as the ongoing World Cup event produced another one of the stunning results on Monday.

Yamal, the Barcelona superstar just recovering from a near two-month hamstring injury, was brought into the game in the second half to zest up the one-time world champion, but failed to break down the Cape Verde’s dogged defence.

Spain’s in the game played in Atlanta, one of the cities hosting the three-nation Mundial, displayed the same dismal outing, which saw them offering far less than the quality, which saw them lifting the trophy for the first time in 2010.

The European champions, which have not won a knockout game ever since, failed to dominate the African side, replicating their less than impressing outings and their eventual exit in 2018 and 2022 editions, even with the claims of coach Luis de la Fuente that the squad was the best in the competition, Spain were considered among the pre-tournament.

Neither Yamal nor Nico Williams, who also was hit by an injury-disrupted season at Athletic Bilbao and was not introduced until the 87th minute, were able to rise to the occasion against the 500,000 people African side, ranked 67 in the world, which is making their debut on the global stage.

In stark contrast to the searing temperatures faced by some other sides, Atlanta’s state-of-the-art air conditioned stadium meant there was no excuses for the slow tempo of Spain’s build-up.

Indeed the mid-half hydration break was met by boos with fans frustrated at the break in play despite the cool conditions.

The only serious move from the European champions only came at the sixth minute to half-time, when Marc Cucurella, fresh for sealing his move from Chelsea to Real Madrid, sent over a teasing cross that Ferran Torres turned onto the crossbar and Cabo Verde goalkeeper Vozinha got back on his feet to turn Mikel Oyarzabal’s looping header over the bar.

Even after the break, the Blue Sharks, were also able to hold back from the onslaught as they did in the first half, where Vozinho, managed to make another superlative save against Aymeric Laporte’s header just before half-time.

Despite the excitement from the crowd after he was introduced, Yamal, billed as one of the stars of the tournament, failed to create any magic with his first touch being the set-up of a decent opening for fellow substitute Mikel Merino which was too close to Vozinha.

In fact, Cabo Verde billed to take on Uruguay in Miami, nearly snatched a famous victory in the final minute of the 90 when Dani Borges planted a header too close to Unai Simon, who saved the occasion, to prevent the former world champions, billed to face Saudi Arabia in Atlanta on Sunday from humiliation.

Share this story: