Menu

A senator’s suspension threatens the right of representation 10 Apr 2025

The Nigerian Senate, on 6 March 2025, voted to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, following the recommendations of its Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions. The grounds for her suspension were her refusal to adhere to the Senate’s seating arrangements and her alleged misconduct during the plenary session of 20 February 2025. As part of the disciplinary measures, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan faced the withdrawal of her security aides, the closure of her Senate office, the suspension of her salary and allowances, and a ban from entering the premises of the National Assembly.

These actions have sparked widespread criticism, particularly in light of the sexual harassment allegations that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan made against the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio. The timing of her suspension, so close to the celebration of International Women’s Day, adds an ironic layer to the controversy. The Senate’s apparent indifference to the gravity of her sexual harassment claims raises profound questions about the institution's commitment to addressing gender-based violence and protecting women’s rights, especially in a period that is meant to honor women’s achievements and advocate for their dignity. The juxtaposition of the suspension with the ignored allegations highlights a deep contradiction in the Senate's stance on gender issues and undermines efforts toward creating a safer and more respectful environment for women in political spaces.

Beyond Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, another group significantly impacted by the unfolding events is the constituency of Kogi Central, which she represents. Her constituents are directly affected not only by the sexual harassment allegations and claims of abuse of power but also by the suspension itself, which leaves their interests unrepresented for a critical period of six months. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has accused the Senate President of deliberately stalling her proposed bills as retaliation for her rejection of his sexual advances, further compounding the sense of injustice to her constituents. There must be a delicate balance between the legislature's authority to regulate its internal proceedings, including disciplining its members, and the rights of the people it serves.

The suspension of a sitting senator, especially one who claims to have been subjected to serious misconduct, raises significant questions about the impact on those she represents. It is not unreasonable to assert that the rights of the constituents should take precedence in such matters, as they have entrusted their representative with the duty of advocating for their needs and interests. In this case, the suspension places their voices on hold, which calls into question the true priorities of the Senate and whether the institution’s actions are genuinely in the service of the people’s best interests.

Parliamentary discipline is a foundational principle across democratic systems, and globally, legislative bodies adhere to a codified framework governing the conduct of their members. This framework often derives from a constitution, a set of standing orders, resolutions of both temporary and permanent natures, specific statutes, or longstanding conventions and practices unique to each legislature. Given that parliamentary bodies are composed of human beings, it is inevitable that, within the dynamic and sometimes contentious environment of a robust assembly, deviations from established protocols occur, occasionally necessitating corrective action.

In the majority of democratic nations, constitutions explicitly authorise a system of disciplinary measures that may be applied to members of parliament. In certain jurisdictions, such as Finland, the standards for parliamentary conduct are enshrined directly within the constitutional text itself, often in succinct terms, without the need for supplementary legislative enactments. The Finnish Constitution mandates that members of parliament maintain a decorous and respectful demeanour, one that does not cause offense to others.

Meanwhile, other nations entrust the power to regulate parliamentary behavior to the assemblies themselves, which are empowered to establish, enforce, and ensure adherence to these norms. Nigeria falls within this latter category. The National Assembly, as Nigeria’s primary legislative body, derives its powers from the Constitution and its standing rules. Section 60 of the Constitution grants the Senate and the House of Representatives the authority to regulate their own procedures. This power includes disciplinary measures such as reprimands, suspensions, or expulsion of members for misconduct. The Standing Orders of the National Assembly provide specific mechanisms for enforcing discipline, including suspensions for disorderly conduct, breaches of legislative ethics, or acts deemed prejudicial to parliamentary decorum. However, these disciplinary measures must align with broader constitutional principles, including those safeguarding democratic representation.

Conversely, there exists a minority of states, including Portugal and Sweden, where the legal framework for disciplining parliamentarians is either non-existent or narrowly defined. In such cases, the authority to enforce order within parliamentary debates is generally vested in the presiding officer, who may revoke a member’s right to speak if that individual persists in defying calls to order or continues to make disruptive or defamatory statements. In Portugal, for example, the parliamentary code permits members accused of slander to present a two-minute defense before the chamber. In Sweden, the onus of ensuring decorum rests with political parties, which are expected to uphold internal codes of conduct to regulate the behaviour of their elected representatives.

Regardless of the specific approach adopted by a state, the underlying objective of these rules is universally aimed at maintaining the integrity and smooth functioning of parliamentary proceedings. Consequently, any disciplinary action taken within this context must be justified by a genuine threat to the orderly conduct of parliamentary business. Thus, the only legitimate grounds for imposing such sanctions are those that directly impair the effectiveness of the assembly’s work.

The range of disciplinary measures available to legislative bodies varies significantly across jurisdictions. In many states, the primary recourse for addressing minor infractions is the formal procedure of a "call to order," a mechanism used to address instances of disruptive or inappropriate behaviour during parliamentary proceedings. For more serious or persistent violations, the temporary exclusion of a parliamentarian may be invoked. This sanction can extend from a brief removal from the ongoing session to a more prolonged suspension, encompassing several sittings or even an entire legislative session. Typically, such exclusions are considered a measure of last resort, implemented only when less severe interventions have proven ineffective. However, in Nigeria, this form of sanction is frequently applied as an initial step, often without recourse to intermediate measures.

There exists no reasonable justification for imposing severe disciplinary measures on a senator who has purportedly "disrupted proceedings" by bringing to light actions she deemed to constitute sexual harassment. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s outcry at the plenary session was to state her belief that the change of seat was the latest retaliatory action by the senate president in his acts of sexual harassment. In such a case, her actions should be assessed not merely through the lens of "disruption," but with a nuanced understanding of her position as an alleged victim of sexual harassment. Any decision regarding disciplinary action must take into account the context of her actions, balancing her right to speak out against potential harm with the necessity of maintaining order in parliamentary proceedings.

Moreover, and crucially, no disciplinary sanction should ever result in the disenfranchisement of the electorate she represents. It is essential that any measure taken preserves the fundamental democratic principle that elected officials are accountable to their constituents. The ability of elected officials to represent their constituents should not be unduly impaired by punitive actions that go beyond what is reasonable or warranted. A legislator’s primary function is to represent his or her constituents in legislative deliberations. The suspension of a legislator, therefore, indirectly punishes the electorate, depriving them of their voice in the legislative process. Section 14(2)(c) of the Constitution emphasises that “the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” By suspending a lawmaker, the National Assembly arguably violates this participatory right.

In both India and the United States, courts have consistently emphasised that legislative suspensions must not erode the principle of electoral representation. In Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha [(2007) 3 SCC 184], the Indian Supreme Court reaffirmed that while legislative discipline is vital, it cannot be wielded arbitrarily to stifle democratic expression. Similarly, Nigerian courts have played a critical role in curbing the misuse of suspension powers by the National Assembly. In 2010, Hon. Dino Melaye and ten other legislators were suspended after accusing the Dimeji Bankole-led House of Representatives of corruption. The Federal High Court ruled that their suspension was illegal and unconstitutional, ordering the payment of their withheld salaries and allowances. In 2012, Honourable Rifkatu Danna, the only female member of the Bauchi State House of Assembly, was suspended for criticising the decision to relocate the headquarters of Tafawa Balewa Local Government Area. The Bauchi State High Court declared the suspension illegal, ordering her reinstatement along with the payment of her withheld salaries. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in 2017, highlighting that the suspension violated the rights of her constituency to be represented.

Also, in 2017, the Federal High Court annulled the suspension of Senator Ali Ndume by the Senate. In 2018, Honourable Abdulmumin Jibrin, a member of the House of Representatives, was suspended for 180 days after accusing the House of padding the 2016 national budget. Again, the Federal High Court declared the suspension null and void, ordering the payment of his withheld salaries and allowances. Similarly, in 2020, the Federal High Court declared the suspension of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege unconstitutional and illegal, reinforcing the growing body of case law on illegal suspensions of lawmakers. This unexhausted list of cases shows the Nigerian courts' stance against unjust suspensions.

These landmark rulings highlight a crucial legal and moral consensus: legislative suspensions must be proportional, restrained, and always aligned with constitutional rights. It is clear that parliamentary privileges cannot trump the foundational principle of democratic representation, which lies at the heart of our constitution.

Given this evolving legal framework, it is time for a reevaluation of Nigeria's parliamentary disciplinary procedures. Legislative rules should be redefined to impose clear limits on the duration of suspensions, ensuring that constituents are never left without representation for as much as half of a calendar year. Alternatively, measures such as censure, fines, or temporary withdrawal of committee privileges could be employed – sanctions that maintain the integrity of parliamentary discipline without infringing on democratic rights.

Our courts must remain vigilant and assertive, ensuring that disciplinary actions are always within the bounds of fairness and the principles enshrined in our Constitution.

Funmilayo Odude is Partner at Commercial and Energy Law Practice (CANDELP).