The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Natasha

  • Suspension: ‘Natasha cannot enforce a judgment she appealed,’ says law expert

    Suspension: ‘Natasha cannot enforce a judgment she appealed,’ says law expert

    Suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (Kogi Central) has been accused of seeking to eat her cake and still have it by appealing the July 4 judgment of a Federal High Court in Abuja and still attempting to enforce the same judgment.

    A senior lawyer, Ken Harries, made this observation while reacting to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s invasion of the National Assembly on Tuesday, claiming to want to enforce the judgment of the Federal High Court, which she claimed ordered her recall.

    Harries wondered if taking the law into one’s hands, as shown by Akpoti-Uduaghan’s conduct on Tuesday, is the right way to enforce a judgment.

    “In my many years in legal practice, I have not seen such a display of lawlessness from a supposed federal lawmaker. How do you invade the National Assembly with a group of touts, claiming to want to enforce a judgment?

    “There are procedures for judgment enforcement. It is not for an individual to take the law into his or her own hands, create a crisis atmosphere on the pretext of wanting to enforce a judgment,” Harries said.

    He recalled that Akpoti-Uduaghan filed an appeal against the judgment about a week ago, faulting the judgment and praying the Court of Appeal to set it aside.

    Harries, who queried the rationale behind Akpoti-Uduaghan’s decision to invade the National Assembly, sought to know what judgment she is seeking to enforce.

    He said, “How do you enforce a judgment that you have said you are not satisfied with, condemned, appealed and prayed the Court of Appeal to reverse?

    “Assuming the judgment is still enforceable, has she complied with all the orders made against her, including that she pay N5million and publish a public apology in two newspapers and her Facebook page?

    “If she has failed to obey the same judgment by not complying with the orders made against her, what moral standing does she have to accuse the leadership of the Senate of being lawless?

    “Her lawyers should be in a better position to advise her to learn to be lawful and respect the rule of law. Whoever goes to equity must go with clean hands,” Harries said.

  • Suspension: I’ll approach appellate court for interpretation of legal impasse – Natasha

    Suspension: I’ll approach appellate court for interpretation of legal impasse – Natasha

    The suspended senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, says she will approach the appellate court for interpretation of the legal impasse between her and the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.

    Akpoti-Uduaghan made this known while speaking with newsmen in Abuja on Tuesday after being refused entrance into the National Assembly Complex by security personnel.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the suspended senator had on Tuesday defied a heavy security blockade and arrived at the national assembly complex on foot from the MOPOL gate, accompanied by a crowd of supporters.

    The lawmaker, whose suspension by the senate is being contested in court, parked her vehicle outside the national assembly premises and walked through the main MOPOL gate, in company with some activists, including Aisha Yesufu.

    Speaking with newsmen, Akpoti-Uduaghan, who defied the rain, insisted that her suspension was not only unjust but also procedurally flawed.

    “Even the suspension, ab initio, was fraudulent. The document that recommended my suspension wasn’t even attested to by the committee members. It was just a photocopy of an attendance sheet passed off as their signatures.

    “There is no reason whatsoever, contrary to the publications that I read yesterday (Monday), that I should not resume today because the senate has appealed my suspension judgment.

    “That’s wrong. What I appealed is the contempt and that is separate. The judgment came in two parts.

    “One was to address the contempt which is based on the satirical apology letter which I made on Facebook which the judge thought it wise in her own stride that amounts to contempt.

    “But I’m saying clearly that that doesn’t amount to contempt of court because before Justice Binta Nyako was not the matter of sexual harassment; it was the matter of suspension,” she said.

    Read Also: BREAKING: Natasha, supporters leave National Assembly complex

    The senator said that if she decided to go back home, that did not mean that she was not unaware of the fact that the national assembly would go into a two-month recess, beginning from Wednesday.

    “If we decide to turn our backs and go home, we are not ignorant of the fact that the national assembly is most likely going to go into recess tomorrow (Wednesday) for two months.

    “And they will resume pretty much in the last week of September and, like you rightly said, that means I would have pretty much served the six months suspension.

    “I’m saying that because as of now, I’m no longer suspended. And there’s something very important I would like to say, that even the suspension, ab initio, was fraudulent,” she said.

    (NAN)

  • BREAKING: Natasha, supporters leave National Assembly complex

    BREAKING: Natasha, supporters leave National Assembly complex

    Suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and a group of her supporters were seen leaving the National Assembly Complex on Monday after an unsuccessful attempt to gain entry.

    READ ALSO: Tunde Onakoya playfully woos Genevieve Nnaji as netizens react

    Earlier today, Natasha was reportedly denied direct vehicular access to the complex due to heightened security measures, prompting her to trek towards the gates alongside a group of her supporters.

  • Did court order Senator Natasha’s recall?

    Did court order Senator Natasha’s recall?

    Did Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja order the Senate to recall suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan? Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE examines the verdict that has been subjected to different interpretations.

    Did Justice Binta Nyako order the Senate to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in her July 4 judgment?

    The court had affirmed that lawmakers are protected from lawsuits when acting in their official legislative capacity, emphasising the doctrine of separation of powers.

    Furthermore, the judge found no violation of Senator Natasha’s fundamental rights by the defendants.

    Yet, in a curious twist, Justice Nyako proceeded to examine the case in detail and issued observations that imply the Senate should comply with certain directives.

    This has created a grey area.

    The Senate is insisting that the verdict delved into a domain traditionally shielded from judicial interference.

    For Senator Natasha, the ruling leaves her at a crossroad.

    She must now decide between extending an olive branch through apology and diplomacy, or taking the bold step of initiating contempt proceedings, should she believe the Senate is disobeying an order to recall her.

    Her next move could set a precedent in the delicate dance between legislative immunity, the just exercise of power and individual rights.

    None of the principal combatants seems keen to yield yet; a peaceful resolution appears elusive.

    Parties to the dispute are now effectively before the Court of Appeal, challenging the July 4 judgment by Justice Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Akpoti-Uduaghan (Peoples Democratic Party, Kogi Central) was the first to lodge an appeal before the Abuja division of the appellate court, following which the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, filed a cross-appeal.

    How it began

    Following what the Senate considered unparliamentary conduct by the Senator during its plenary session of February 20, the Senate President on February 25 wrote to the Senate’s Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct to investigate the incident of February 20.

    Shortly after the committee commenced its assignment, Akpoti-Uduaghan filed a suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, before the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 3, claiming, among others, to have been denied a fair hearing during the February 20 session.

    She listed the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the President of the Senate and the Chairman of the Senate’s Ethics and Privileges Committee, Senator Neda Imasuen as respondents.

    Among others, she sought: “A declaration that the second and third defendants’ referral of the events of the 20th day of February, 2025 to the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges, headed by the fourth defendant, without first considering and disposing of the matter of the plaintiff’s privilege duly raised at the plenary session of the second defendant on the 20th day of February, 2025 is unconstitutional, unlawful and ultra vires the powers of the 2nd and 3rd defendants.”

    She prayed for an order “setting aside any decision, findings, or recommendations of the fourth defendant arising from the referral of the events of the 20th day of February 2025, for being in violation of the plaintiff’s right to fair hearing and exercise of her privileges conferred under the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended) made pursuant to the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap. 208 LFN 1990”.

    How the court decided the suit

    In her July 4 judgment, Justice Nyako identified key issues thrown up by the case and resolved them accordingly.

    The issues included the plaintiff’s alleged contemptuous conduct, the challenge to the court’s jurisdiction on several grounds, the interpretation of Orders 9, 10 and 11 of the Senate Rules and the right of a member to raise issues of privilege at any time under the Legislative Houses(Powers and Privileges) Act 2017.

    There were also the issues relating to whether the February 20 proceedings on the floor of the Senate were lawfully conducted; the power of the Senate President to allocate seats under the Senate Rules; the propriety of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, and whether or not the suit was meritorious.

    On contempt

    The complaint by Akpabio on this issue was that, despite a pending order of the court barring parties and their lawyers from publicly commenting on the subject of the suit, the plaintiff published what she termed a “satirical apology letter,” addressed to the Senate President on her Facebook page on April 27.

    Justice Nyako identified two issues. In resolving them, the judge said: “Having carefully examined all the arguments of the parties, it is evident that the order of 4th April 2025 unambiguously barred all parties and counsel from making press statements or social media posts in relation to the subject matter of this case.

    “The plaintiff’s counsel was present in court when the said order was pronounced, and the plaintiff cannot feign ignorance of same.

    “From the content of the plaintiff’s Facebook post l, which I have now seen/read, there is no doubt the post alluded to the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s conduct at the plenary of 20th February 2025, and by implication, the investigation and recommendations by the Senate Committee on Ethnics, which are matters forming the basis of the present action.

    Read Also: Natasha and her contentiousness

    “The publication, therefore, falls squarely within the scope of the restraint imposed by the court’s order, which post speaks for itself.

    “While the plaintiff seeks to rely on her constitutional right to freedom of expression, it must be reiterated that such a right is not absolute.

    “Section 45 of the Constitution permits restrictions where such limitations are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    “The order of court, no matter how the parties felt about it, must be obeyed. They have a right to appeal same but not to flout it.

    “It is well established in law that disobedience of a court order amounts to contempt. The courts, in a long line of authorities, have consistently held that willful defiance of a court order strikes at the root of the rule of law. No litigant may pick and choose which orders to obey.

    “On contempt, having found that the plaintiff acted in breach of this court’s subsisting order, the plaintiff must take responsibility for her actions and remedy same.

    “What is the remedy to this contempt? Because this is contempt in a civil cause, I hereby order a fine to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Federal Government treasury in the sum of N5million and to publish a public apology to the court in two national dailies, and on her Facebook page within seven days of today to purge herself of the contempt,” the judge said.

    On jurisdiction

    In assuming jurisdiction over the case, Justice Nyako held that:

    The requirement of a three-month pre-action notice under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 cannot apply to members.

    She also held that under Section 1 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017, legislators, including Akpabio and Imasuen are protected from litigation for any action done in the course of their legislative duties.

    The judge further held that, by the operation of the doctrine of separation of powers and constitutional provisions, courts lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of legislative houses, except where there is a clear breach of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.

    Justice Nyako also found that the cause of action was inchoate because the plaintiff filed the suit before she was suspended.

    She, however, held that the court possessed the jurisdiction to hear it because the case bordered on fundamental rights.

    On the propriety of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension

    Justice Nyako held that although the Senate Rules and the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act allow a member to be suspended, the provision that makes such suspension indefinite offends the Constitution and democratic tenets.

    She said: “I have read, in its entirety, the Senate Rules under which the plaintiff was suspended, thus denying the representation of her Senatorial Districts.

    “I believe that the Constitution, Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act and the Senate Rules will not intend for that to happen.

    “I have read with interest, chapter ix (9) of the Senate Rules and Section 14(2) of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act VIII (8) allow the Senate to suspend a senator until a time determined by the senate (ad infinitum) while Section 14(2) allows for suspension of a member (Senator) in similar terms even without pay.

    “I do not think the Constitution envisages this.  A Senator is expected to represent his people in either legislative house for a specific number of days per session.

    “If any suspension is unwarranted, then I opine that the Act and the Senate Rules should also be specific and not live it at large. A suspension cannot exceed the requisite number of days the member should sit.

    “The Constitution says a legislative year is 181 days and the house should sit for this number of days. This makes it at least 36.2 weeks in a year, which is a session.

    “To suspend a member for six months means suspension for 180 days and this is half the number of days the member is expected to sit in the house, representing his people. 1 do not think this is the intention of the framer of the law.

    “To make a law that has no end is excessive and cannot be the intendment of the law.

    “I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to review this provision of the Senate Rules and even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act, both for being over reaching.

    “The Senate has the power to and I believe, should recall the plaintiff and allow her to represent the people, who sent her there to represent them,” Justice Nyako said.

    On whether the suit was meritorious

    Justice Nyako found that the suit was without merit on the grounds that the respondents, in their conduct, did not breach the plaintiff’s right to fair hearing and violated no known laws.

    The judge said: “The law is indeed settled that court should not interfere with legislative proceedings of the second defendant, unless there has been a constitutional breach in view of the doctrine of Separation of Powers…

    “The courts have consistently held that they lack jurisdiction to interfere in internal affairs of the legislature unless there is clear breach of constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights.

    “In the circumstances of this case, as rightly contended by the defendants, an invitation to appear before an Ethics Committee of the Senate is a clear manifestation of procedural fairness, not a breach of it.

    “From a careful reading of the originating summons, there exists no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the defendants contravened a statutory or constitutional provisions as the crux of this action is hinged solely on protection of parliamentary privilege on the floor of Senate.”

    Part of the enrolled orders

    • That, having found that the plaintiff acted in breach of this court’s subsisting order, the plaintiff must take responsibility for her action and remedy same. Thus, an order is hereby made for the plaintiff to pay a fine in the sum of N5million 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 from today, to purge herself of the contempt

    • That the preliminary objection succeeds in part, in that some aspects of the cause of actions may be inchoate, but in enforcement of fundamental rights, an act can lie where the infringement is in anticipation – is being, has been or is likely to be breached.

    • That Order 6 of the Senate Rules gives the power to allocate and re-allocate seats to Senators to the Senate President without conditions.

    • That to suspend a member for a period of six months equals to a suspension for 180 days and this is the same number of days a member is expected to sit in the House, representing his people.

    • That I find this excessive and over reaching, noting that it will prevent a member from complying with Section 63 of the 1999 Constitution

    • That I am of the opinion that the Senate has the power to review the provisions of the Senate Rules and can even amend Section 14(2) of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act both for being excessive and over reaching.

    • That the Senate has the power to, and I believe, should recall the plaintiff and allow her to resume representing the people who sent her there to represent them.

    Parties’ interpretation of the judgment

    In a letter, dated July 11, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Michael Numa, requested that the Senate recall his client in compliance with the decision of the court.

    Numa said: “We respectfully demand that you give immediate effect to the clear and binding order of the Federal High Court by taking all necessary steps to facilitate Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s resumption of her legislative duties forthwith, in full compliance with the Court’s judgment.”

    The Senate thinks otherwise, with its spokesman, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, faulting Numa’s position on the court’s decision.

    Adaramodu said: “The Senate wishes to state categorically and for the avoidance of doubt that the certified true copy (CTC) of the enrolled order did not contain any express or mandatory order directing the recall or reinstatement of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.

    “Nowhere in the judgment did the Court issue a declaratory or injunctive order mandating her recall.

    “However, the Senate will consider and deliberate on this judgment and consequently take a constitutionally informed position on the matter and convey the outcome to the affected Senator and the public.”

    Issues before the Court of Appeal

    Akpoti-Uduaghan’s appeal is directed at the portion of the judgment where the trial court cited her for contempt and among others, imposed a N5m fine.

    Some grounds of appeal raised in the notice of appeal include that the trial court lacked the requisite jurisdiction over an ex facie curiae contempt (contempt committed outside the courtroom).

    She is also faulting the court’s decision to impose what she termed a criminal sanction (fine) on her without proper process, accusing the trial court of substituting the reliefs beyond what was requested, to include excessiveness and the punitive nature of the fine.”

    Akpoti-Uduaghan wants the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court’s decision in relation to the issue of contempt and declare the entire proceedings null and void, quash the N5 million fine, and assert that the satirical post in question did not violate any lawful court order.

    She described the judgment as procedurally flawed and an indication of judicial bias.

    She also alleges judicial bias, pointing out that similar public commentaries by other senior lawyers involved in the case, including Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) and Monday Ubani (SAN), went unpunished despite repeated media appearances in which they allegedly made prejudicial comments about the ongoing case.

    “Justice must be blind and fair. Selective application of contempt proceedings undermines public confidence in the judiciary,” she claimed in one of the grounds of appeal.

    In his cross-appeal, Akpabio is particularly unhappy with the decision of the trial court to assume jurisdiction over the suit filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan.

    He contends that issues raised in the suit relate solely to the internal affairs of the National Assembly and fall outside judicial purview as provided under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The Senate President faulted the Federal High Court for dismissing his preliminary objection and for issuing orders affecting parliamentary procedures protected by law.

    Akpabio wants the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, strike out the duplicated reliefs contained in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s multiple applications, dismiss her suit for lack of jurisdiction and reject what he termed the trial court’s “advisory opinions” to the Senate, especially those relating to amending its rules or recalling a suspended member.

    Senate issues caution

    The Senate at the weekend warned Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan against plans to forcefully resume plenary today.

    It insisted there is no court order mandating her recall.

    Adaramodu stated that Justice Nyako’s judgment offered only a non-binding advisory urging the Senate to review its Standing Orders and the suspension, which the court described as possibly excessive.

    The judgment, he stressed, did not direct her immediate reinstatement.

    The Senate urged her to follow due process and avoid disrupting proceedings.

    Not a few Nigerians will be keen to see how this long-running saga – which Natasha called an “injustice that will not stand” – is finally resolved.

  • Plot to storm chamber tomorrow: Senate warns Natasha

    Plot to storm chamber tomorrow: Senate warns Natasha

    • ‘No court ordered your recall’
    • Kogi Central lawmaker advised to follow due process

    The Senate yesterday warned suspended Kogi Central Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against her alleged plan to “storm” the Red Chamber tomorrow.

    In a statement in Abuja, the Senate spokesman, Senator Adeyemi Adaramodu,, said no enforceable court order has mandated the Senate to recall her.

    The Kogi Central Senator was suspended in March for six months over alleged misconduct.

    Adaramodu urged Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to follow due process, in pursuing her recall from suspension.

    He said: “The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria wishes to reaffirm, for the third time, that there is no subsisting court order mandating the Senate to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.

    “This clarification becomes necessary following the circulating claims by the suspended Senator that she intends to resume at the Senate next Tuesday, based on a misinterpretation of the recent judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    “It will be recalled that the Senate had, through my office, issued two public statements following the judgment and the subsequent release of the Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order.

    “In both statements, we made it unequivocally clear that the judgment did not contain any positive or mandatory order directing the Senate to recall Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan before the end of her suspension.

    “Rather, the Honourable Court gave a non-binding advisory urging the Senate to consider amending its Standing Orders and reviewing the suspension, which it opined might be excessive.

    “The Court, however, explicitly held that the Senate did not breach any law or constitutional provision in imposing the disciplinary measure based on the Senator’s misconduct during plenary.

    “Furthermore, the Court found Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt of court and imposed penalties, including a fine of N5million payable to the Federal Government, and a mandatory apology in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page. Till date, these directives remain uncomplied with.

    “It is, therefore, surprising and legally untenable that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, while on appeal and having filed a motion for stay against the valid and binding orders made against her, is attempting to act upon an imaginary order of recall that does not exist.

    Read Also: Senate warns Natasha against plot to “storm” chamber

    “The Senate emphasizes once more: there is no enforceable order directing her immediate return to the chamber.

    “We advise the Distinguished Senator to refrain from any attempt to storm the Senate next Tuesday under a false pretext, as doing so would not only be premature but also undermine the dignity of the Senate and violate due process.

    “The Senate, as a law-abiding institution, is committed to upholding the rule of law and the integrity of its proceedings. It will not tolerate the disruption of its proceedings.

    “The Senate will, at the appropriate time, consider the advisory opinion of the court on both amending the Standing Orders of the Senate, her recall, and communicate the same thereof to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan.

    “Until then, she is respectfully advised to stay away from the Senate chambers and allow due process to run its full course.”

  • Senate warns Natasha against plot to “storm” chamber

    Senate warns Natasha against plot to “storm” chamber

    • …says no court order mandates immediate recall
    • …urges Kogi Central Senator to follow due process

    The Senate on Sunday warned suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against her alleged plot to “storm” the chambers on Tuesday.

    The spokesman of the Senate, Senator Adeyemi Adaramodu, who gave this advice in a statement in Abuja, said there exists no enforceable court order mandating the Senate to recall the Kogi Central Senator, who was suspended in March for six months over alleged misconduct.

    He urged Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to follow due process, in pursuing her recall from suspension.

    Akpoti-Uduaghan has continued to insist that she will resume plenary on Tuesday in line with an order for her reinstatement allegedly given by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court recently.

    However, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamaru Ogunlana, have insisted that the court did not give any order mandating the Senate to recall her.

    Adaramodu said, “The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria wishes to reaffirm, for the third time, that there is no subsisting court order mandating the Senate to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.

    “This clarification becomes necessary following the circulating claims by the suspended Senator that she intends to resume at the Senate next Tuesday based on a misinterpretation of the recent judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Read Also: 36 commissioners oppose Senate-proposed Electricity Act Amendment Bill

    “It will be recalled that the Senate had, through my office, issued two public statements following the judgment and the subsequent release of the Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order.

    “In both statements, we made it unequivocally clear that the judgment did not contain any positive or mandatory order directing the Senate to recall Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan prior to the end of her suspension.

    “Rather, the Honourable Court gave a non-binding advisory urging the Senate to consider amending its Standing Orders and reviewing the suspension, which it opined might be excessive.

    “The Court, however, explicitly held that the Senate did not breach any law or constitutional provision in imposing the disciplinary measure based on the Senator’s misconduct during plenary.

    “Furthermore, the Court found Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt of court and imposed penalties, including a fine of N5million payable to the Federal Government, and a mandatory apology in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page. Till date, these directives remain uncomplied with.

    “It is therefore surprising and legally untenable that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, while on appeal and having filed a motion for stay against the valid and binding orders made against her, is attempting to act upon an imaginary order of recall that does not exist.

    “The Senate emphasised once more: there is no enforceable order directing her immediate return to the chamber.

    “We advise the distinguished senator to refrain from any attempt to storm the Senate next Tuesday under a false pretext, as doing so would not only be premature but also undermine the dignity of the Senate and violate due process.

    “The Senate, as a law-abiding institution, is committed to upholding the rule of law and the integrity of its proceedings. It will not tolerate the disruption of its proceedings.

    “The Senate will, at the appropriate time, consider the advisory opinion of the court on both amending the Standing Orders of the Senate, her recall, and communicate same thereof to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan.

    “Until then, she is respectfully advised to stay away from the Senate chambers and allow due process to run its full course.”

  • Natasha and her contentiousness

    Natasha and her contentiousness

    The suspended senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is as inscrutable as they come. Until she broke into the national scene a few years ago, she was hidden in thorough anonymity. But once she turned her electoral contest against former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello into a soap opera, there was no stopping her. Controversial, recalcitrant, and self-centred, she has also demonstrated a huge capacity to be exploitative and manipulative. Her current battle, however, is with senate president Godswill Akpabio. Yet, three times in her recent jousting with the man she had sensationally accused of sexual harassment, she was offered a way out of the bind in which she threw herself. Thrice she spurned the offers.

    She had hoped the case would be resolved in her favour through local and international public agitation. Despite her best efforts, including shedding crocodile tears and manipulating top Nigerian women whom she described as ‘useful idiots’, she came a cropper. Now, she has cases in three courts. In one, after Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court fined her N5m and asked her to apologise to the court for contempt, she has dragged her feet. In fact she has appealed, with the senate also embarking on a cross-appeal, thus tying up the case a few knots further. She seems to enjoy the reputation of being contentious, in addition to being naïve, pedantic and embroiled in completely needless battles and controversies. However, with each grueling case and controversy, she becomes less and less believable and credible.

    The movement of transition

    By Tatalo Alamu (PIX)

    Last week, on Sunday to be precise, Nigeria lost two of her most famous sons. Even for a nation inured to endless mysteries and political perplexities, the astrological signals and significance of these departures could hardly be missed. It was like a double meteor falling off the skies in quick succession. Nigerians had hardly taken in the import of the passing of a former ruler of the country in faraway London where he had sought medical refuge only to be informed that a frontline traditional ruler had also joined his ancestors, this time in the privacy of the royal bedroom.

     General Mohammadu Buhari was a notable soldier and civil war hero who became a military head of state and was removed by his colleagues for his strong-willed inflexibility and inability to transcend primordial and provincial proclivities. A man of adamantine resolve, he later became a civilian ruler of the country after three unsuccessful attempts. In the case of Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, he was a stellar and outstanding product of Nigeria’s durable and resilient traditional institution, becoming the Awujale  at the youthful age of twenty six in 1960 and going on to rule over his people with courage and forthrightness for the next sixty five years. After some youthful indiscretions, he settled down to rule his people with much royal flair and firmness.

    It was, as they say in this clime, the end of an era. But it is much more profound than that. It was a historic watershed for Nigeria. It was the culmination of the movement of transition in a particular direction which makes reversal in the former direction totally impossible having exhausted its historical and material possibilities. As enunciated by our former teacher Professor Oyin Ogunba, a liberal humanist and scholar of distinction, the movement of transition stresses the absolute contiguity between the world of the living and the world of the dead in the Yoruba cosmology. But it is a one-way traffic or as Amos Tutuola will put it in his colourful English: it is a journey to the land of the “unreturnable”. The dead have expended their visa and cannot return to the world of the living. This is why certain deaths are symbolic of a collective closure and the culmination of a particular phase of existence in a particular nation. It is the unforced and unhurried exit of certain historical forces and exceptional personalities that have dominated and determined the fortunes of their country for good or bad. They are what Charles de Gaulle, thinking of himself, called “sacred monsters”.

    Read Also: FAAC shares highest allocation of N1.818tr in June

     The case of the late Awujale is more straightforward and less complicated. The nasty posthumous spat with traditionalists who wanted to take control of the royal remains notwithstanding, he was a beneficiary of more benevolent historical forces and a benign conjuncture. His was a cohesive society with core values shaped by the history and culture of his industrious and enterprising people. Among the various sub-nations of the cultured and cosmopolitan Yoruba people, the Ijebu people stand out for the solidity of their worldview, the rigour of their traditional institutions and the breezy confidence with which they deal with existential and historical exigencies. They have been living in the same domain continuously for over a thousand years and they have never been militarily subdued except once when overconfidence and lack of discretion allowed vastly superior British artillery to overrun their ramparts ending in a humiliating rout at Imagbon in 1892. They quickly recovered the initiative   after taking to heart the lesson that ancient amulets are no match for modern bullets.

      There can be no doubt that Oba Sikiru Adetona left Ijebu-Ode a much better, more prosperous and culturally thriving place than he met it, with his people more united, more vibrant, more accomplished and forward-looking. Thanks to his cousin, Mike Adeniyi Adenuga the Globacom mogul, the annual Ojude Oba gathering has been transformed into a global cultural extravaganza which has brought world-wide fame and recognition to his domain. He had met Ijebu-Ode a rural municipality and had transformed it through sheer determination and the force of his towering personality to a thriving modern city with well-paved roads, majestic edifices, amenities, first class institutions and a slew of industries. Nothing that could add lustre and prestige to his beloved town escaped his attention and searching scrutiny. A personal example will suffice. After the burial of Toun Onabanjo in 2011, yours sincerely in the company of some notable Yoruba leaders, repaired to his palace.

     It was our first and last meeting. After introduction, the Awujale concentrated his gaze and attention on the columnist bemoaning the fact that one was one of those Ijebu children lost to the diaspora. Even after Chief Segun Osoba had told him that one was from a village in Osun State, the revered monarch insisted on our departure that the columnist must return home to put something on ground. Such was his charismatic charm and the goodwill he radiated. By the time he joined his ancestors last Sunday, the late king had been transformed into a supranatural personage of transcendental courage and immanent integrity, a mighty oak and auroch among men. Little wonder that the entire Ijebuland had been thrown into deep mourning and depression.

     Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be said about the general from Daura who left his country far more bitterly divided, polarized and impoverished than when he met it as a self-professed born again democrat and civilian leader. In death as in life, General Mohammadu Buhari split his country and people centrally. While the Nigerian ruling class and its global cohorts showered effusive encomiums and fake testimonials on him, the teeming masses of Nigerians across ethnic and religious lines were not impressed. They jettisoned the cultural admonishment not to speak ill of the dead as nothing but feudal veto and autocratic overreach.

    Angry callers jammed switchboards condemning him as an ineffectual political leader and his reign a massive rip-off and hypocritical scam. Never in living memory, except the passing of General Sani which was met with widespread celebrations and wild jubilation in some sections of the country, has a Nigerian leader met with such hostility and scarification in death. They accused him of not walking his talk on corruption, of leaving Nigeria with a worse security nightmare and of compounding the problems of ethnic, religious and cultural diversities in the country. Yet others hailed him for his infrastructural feats which are unequalled and unprecedented in the annals of the country and his massive empowerment schemes which turned out a classic instance of Stone Age economics compounded by a fiscal fiddling of the Exchequer.

     These divergent and countervailing opinions point at something more fundamental: a deeper structural misalignment of the nation which Buhari was fundamentally incapable of perceiving. He was a systems man and not a system changer or disruptor. His was a narrow and circumscribed feudal worldview in which all the issues were already settled and in which everybody was supposed to know his place. Having such a man as a leader in a roiling postcolonial menagerie of combustible contradictions is a cruel set-up. But power hungry while being politically maladroit Buhari was a willing martyr and accomplice. He allowed himself to be set up while also setting up the country and its teeming expectant populace. Under the spreading colonial chestnut tree of political perfidy, you sold me and I sold you.

    A man of more cultivated social habits, wider reading regimen and sharper political instincts would have seen through the fog from a mile off. Throughout his life, there was a lingering whiff of spite, resentment and scornful contempt as if he could not live down the haughty condescension of the blue-blood feudal Brahmins who looked down on him as belonging to an inferior caste of forest dwellers and the humiliation of having been toppled by his own junior colleagues. After he was elected the president of the country, a senior military colleague and former benefactor was known to have remonstrated with him that it was time to forget and forgive those who had wronged him in the past. He was said to have looked up in consternation at his former boss before exploding: “Including Ibrahim?” Yet it was the same Ibrahim whose magnanimity and generosity of spirit made sure no harm came his way on the night he was arrested and dethroned.

    Nigeria is not a unified or homogeneous country. Its contradictions have not been simplified and unbundled to a simple confrontation between the haves and the have-nots. Those, including this writer, who invested unrealistic hopes in the general from Daura have not been fair to him or the country. We had unfairly surmised that with his populist mystique, his aura of authority and messianic infallibility he would be the avenging avatar that would drag the north by the scruff of the neck screaming and kicking into the portals of modernity. But General Buhari is not a Colonel Mustapha Kemal Ataturk; neither is he a Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser or even Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi for that matter. This is because Nigeria is neither Turkey nor Egypt or Libya. We must always modify our expectations based on the internal configuration and the state of nationhood of each country.

    General Mohammadu Buhari has given it his very best shot. He was not a rebel or a radical but a former herd-boy made good. In an engrossing play of irony, his military superiors who in 1976 upon the assassination of Murtala Mohammed foreclosed his appointment as Chief of General Staff, Defense Headquarters on the patriotic grounds that based on his political clumsiness such an appointment might imperil a sterling military career merely opened a surer path to political preeminence for him. General Obasanjo and General Danjuma could not see far into the turbulent future. Both Buhari and Shehu Yar’Adua, the man who acceded to the post, were classmates in Katsina Provincial College but there is no evidence of deep friendship between the two. The two military brass hats ended up in partisan politics with Yar’Adua perishing in Abacha’s Gulag while Buhari went on to become a twice elected civilian president.

      With the transition of General Buhari last Sunday, we have reached the end of an era; a critical threshold in the history of the nation and the culmination of events which began fifty years earlier with the overthrow of General Yakubu Gowon and the ascendance, military dominance and political hegemony of the civil war officers, those heady warriors who believed that because they fought for the unity and preservation of the country, they also had a right to control the political and economic destiny of the nation. They have left their deep marks on the tumultuous history of the nation. It has taken half a century for the nation to discharge its debt of obligation to them. But now, Nigeria has entered a new phase.

  • Akpabio appeals judgment on Natasha’s suspension suit

    Akpabio appeals judgment on Natasha’s suspension suit

    Senate President Godswill Akpabio has appealed against the Federal High Court judgment which recommended the recall of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate.

    In a notice of appeal dated July 14, 2025, filed through his lead counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), Akpabio seeks to overturn the July 4 judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako.

    The High Court had described Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension as “excessive” and faulted the deprivation of her constituency of Senate representation.

    The appeal, marked CA/2025, arose from suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, which was instituted by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to challenge her suspension from the Senate.

    Akpabio’s legal team is contesting the High Court’s jurisdiction, insisting the matter concerns the internal affairs of the National Assembly and falls outside judicial purview as provided under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The Senate President, in his 11 grounds of appeal, faulted the Federal High Court for dismissing his preliminary objection and for issuing orders affecting parliamentary procedures protected by law.

    According to the Senate President, suspension, words spoken during plenary, and Senate resolutions are safeguarded under the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and cannot be subjected to judicial interference.

    Read ALso: Akpabio rallies Niger Delta for Tinubu

    The Senate President claimed that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit was premature as it did not exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the Senate, particularly the Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petitions, as prescribed in the Senate Standing Orders, 2023 (as amended).

    He also faulted the trial court for allegedly breaching his right to a fair hearing by raising issues not argued by any of the parties, including the question of whether Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension was excessive.

    Akpabio said the judge erred by making recommendations for her recall without giving both sides an opportunity to address the issue.

    “The court cannot grant a relief that was not asked for,” the appeal stated, pointing out that the Federal High Court’s recommendation that Senator Natasha be recalled was not one of the reliefs she sought in her originating summons. “The court crossed the line.”

    Akpabio also accused the Federal High Court of procedural irregularities by merging interlocutory reliefs sought by Akpoti-Uduaghan with her substantive claims, despite their duplication.

    He also argued that her suit should have been struck out for failing to comply with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Act, which requires a three-month notice to be served on the Clerk of the National Assembly before initiating legal action.

    Among other reliefs, Akpabio urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, strike out the duplicated reliefs contained in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s multiple applications, dismiss her suit for lack of jurisdiction and reject what he termed the trial court’s “advisory opinions” to the Senate, especially those relating to amending its rules or recalling a suspended member.

    The former Akwa Ibom State governor also urged the court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to resolve his preliminary objection and dismiss the entire case.

    Also yesterday, the National Assembly responded to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s letter in which she sought to resume her legislative duties.

    The letter dated July 14, 2025, was titled: “Re: Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 – Senator  Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. CNA & 3ors – Forwarding of Court Order and demand for compliance.”

    It was addressed to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Michael Jonathan Numa (SAN) and signed by the Director, Litigation and Counselling of the Legal Services Directorate of the National Assembly, Charles Yoila, for the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana.

    The letter reads in part: “I am directed to reply to your letter to the Clerk to the National Assembly, dated 11th July 2025.

    “From our summary of the judgment order, there is no order made on the 4th day of July, 2025, by Hon. Justice B.F.N. Nyako for the Senate, President of the Senate or National Assembly to comply with.

    “The declaratory judgment merely advised the defendants to exercise their power to recall Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and allow her to resume representing the people who sent her to represent them.

    “Accordingly, you may wish to advise your client to await the action of the Senate to exercise their power of recall as advised by the court.”

  • Senate not bound by court’s remarks on Natasha, says legal expert

    Senate not bound by court’s remarks on Natasha, says legal expert

    A legal analyst, Mr. Dayo Fadugba, has dismissed claims that the Federal High Court ordered the recall of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

    He insisted that the Senate is under no legal obligation to act on judicial remarks that did not form part of the court’s binding orders.

    Fadugba, in a statement on Tuesday, said the July 4, 2025 judgment by Justice Binta Nyako was misinterpreted.

    He stated that the judgment did not grant any of the reliefs sought by the Kogi Central lawmaker and that the Senate remains fully within its rights not to act on what he called “mere judicial commentary.”

    According to him, Senator Natasha’s challenge to the Senate’s invitation to appear before its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, her objection to the reassignment of her seat, and her insistence on speaking from an unauthorised location in the chamber were all dismissed by the court.

    READ ALSO: Presidency: FEC postpones special session in honour of Buhari

    “In clear terms, she violated Senate Standing Orders by invoking Order 10 inappropriately, and the court found her actions to be unparliamentary,” he said.

    Fadugba emphasised that the court also threw out her claim that she could not be disciplined by the Senate, reinforcing the legislature’s constitutional authority to maintain internal order. 

    “Every major claim she presented was resolved against her. The court did not issue any order directing her reinstatement. There is simply no enforceable judicial mandate requiring the Senate to recall her,” he said.

    Despite the court’s ruling, Senator Natasha was seen celebrating the outcome with supporters, suggesting that the judgment had favoured her. 

    “It was a misrepresentation of the facts and a distortion of the law,” he said.

    He further noted that the court found Senator Natasha guilty of contempt and imposed specific sanctions, including a ₦5 million fine payable to the Federal Government, an order to delete a mocking ‘apology’ post from her Facebook page, and a directive to publish a sincere apology in two national dailies and on social media.

    “These are not suggestions — they are binding orders of the court,” he noted.

    Fadugba cautioned against confusing judicial observations with enforceable rulings. 

    “The court’s remarks about the Senate possibly reviewing its Standing Orders or considering her return were obiter dicta — personal reflections by the judge that carry no binding force. 

    “They were not part of the reliefs sought and cannot, in law, compel the Senate to act.”

    In response to Senator Natasha’s notice of appeal, Fadugba said a cross-appeal and an interlocutory application have been filed. 

    These, he said, are aimed at preserving the integrity of the legislature and preventing a misreading of the court’s decision. 

    “This is not about politics; it’s about constitutional clarity. 

    “The Senate will not be bound by judicial remarks that do not create enforceable obligations.”

    He reaffirmed that the Senate remains committed to order, discipline and the rule of law, and will not be swayed by campaigns designed to pressure or embarrass the institution. 

    “The Senate is focused on its responsibilities and continues to support President Bola Tinubu’s administration in its pursuit of national development. 

    “It cannot and will not be distracted.”

  • Akpabio appeals court order recalling Natasha

    Akpabio appeals court order recalling Natasha

    Senate President Godswill Akpabio, has filed a notice of appeal to challenge the ruling of the Federal High Court, which ‘ordered’ the recall of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Senate.

    In a notice of appeal dated July 14, 2025, filed by Akpabio—through his lead counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, Akpabio is seeking to overturn the July 4 judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako.

    The High Court had described Akpoti-Uduaghan’s six-month suspension as “excessive” and without legal justification.

    The appeal, marked CA/2025, arises from suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, which was instituted by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to challenge her suspension from the Senate.

    Akpabio’s legal team is contesting the High Court’s jurisdiction, insisting the matter concerns the internal affairs of the National Assembly and falls outside judicial purview as provided under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The Senate President in his 11 grounds of appeal, faulted the Federal High Court for dismissing his preliminary objection and for issuing orders affecting parliamentary procedures protected by law.

    According to the Senate President, issues pertaining to suspension, words spoken during plenary, and Senate resolutions are safeguarded under the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act and cannot be subjected to judicial interference.

    READ ALSO: Presidency: FEC postpones special session in honour of Buhari

    The Senate President further claimed that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suit was premature as it did not exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the Senate, particularly the Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct and Public Petitions, as prescribed in the Senate Standing Orders, 2023 (as amended).

    He also faulted the trial court for allegedly breaching his right to a fair hearing by raising issues not argued by any of the parties, including the question of whether Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension was excessive.

    Akpabio said the judge erred by making recommendations for her recall without giving both sides an opportunity to address the issue.

    “The court cannot grant a relief that was not asked for,” the appeal stated, pointing out that the Federal High Court’s recommendation that Senator Natasha be recalled was not one of the reliefs she sought in her originating summons. “The court crossed the line.”

    Akpabio also accused the Federal High Court of procedural irregularities by merging interlocutory reliefs sought by Akpoti-Uduaghan with her substantive claims, despite their duplication.

    He also argued that her suit should have been struck out for failing to comply with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Act, which requires a three-month notice to be served on the Clerk of the National Assembly before initiating legal action.

    Among other reliefs, Akpabio urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, atrike out the duplicated reliefs contained in Akpoti-Uduaghan’s multiple applications, dismiss her suit for lack of jurisdiction and reject what he termed the trial court’s “advisory opinions” to the Senate, especially those relating to amending its rules or recalling a suspended member.

    The former Akwa Ibom Governor also urged the court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to resolve his preliminary objection and dismiss the entire case.