Alex Enumah in Abuja

Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja, yesterday, faulted the suspension of the Senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, from the Senate and advised the red chamber to recall her.

However, Justice Nyako found the Senator guilty of contempt of court and, subsequently, fined her the sum of N5 million.

The judge also ordered her to tender a public apology in two national dailies, as well as on her Facebook page.

Justice Nyako made the order while delivering a ruling in a contempt charge filed against her by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.

Delivering judgement in the main suit, Nyako explained that the Acts and Rules of the National Assembly, including the Senate Rules, are all subject to the Constitution.

The judge, who held that the Rules/ Orders of the Senate empowers the Senate President to change the seat of any member of the Senate at will, faulted the leadership for breaching its own rules when it heard Akpoti-Uduaghan outside the seat allocated to her, during the February plenary that resulted to the case before the court.

“Chapter three does not give any criteria as to how seats are allocated”, Justice Nyako said, “She cannot speak until she is on the seat allocated to her.”

She added that the Senate and Akpabio should not have taken any step in her matter, since she was not sitting on the seat allocated to her.

Further faulting Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension for six months, Justice Nyako observed that it was not the intention of the Constitution and the Senate Rules to take disciplinary actions against a member to the extent of denying the people of adequate representation.

According to her, the Senate has 181 days to sit in a year, including public holidays and weekends, therefore suspending a legislator for six months was more than excessive and deprives her constituents of adequate representation.

“Members can be sanctioned but it must not be excessive to the extent that it deprives the people she is representing,” the judge held.

“The Senate should recall the plaintiff to enable her to continue to represent her people,” she added.

The Senate had on March 5, suspended Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, for allegedly breaching the rules of the Senate, for refusing to relocate to a new seat allocated to her in the red chamber.

Besides her refusal to vacate her seat for the new allottee, the Senator had engaged in argument with the Senate President, as well as laying allegations of sexual harassment against Akpabio.

Displeased with the decision of the leadership of the upper house, Akpoti-Uduaghan had approached the court to declare her suspension as unlawful and illegal.

Natasha had dragged the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, Senator Nedamwen Imasuen to court over her suspension from the Senate for six months.

The Senate predicated its action on alleged violations of its rules by the Kogi State federal lawmaker during a plenary of the red chamber in February.

However, while hearing of the suit was ongoing, Akpoti-Uduaghan published a satirical apology letter on her Facebook page, an act which the court said violated its April 4, order restraining all parties from speaking to the media in respect of the case.

Justice Nyako had ordered parties not to do anything that would affect the outcome of the case.

Following the publication of the satirical letter on her Facebook page, the Senate President had asked the court to try Akpoti-Uduaghan for contempt and declined from further hearing of her suit challenging her suspension, if found guilty of contempt.

Delivering ruling before judgement in the substantive suit yesterday, the court held that the satirical apology letter, despite claim by the plaintiff that it bordered around sexual harassment allegations, still touched on the subject matter before her court.

“An order of court must be obeyed,” Nyako said, adding that an affected party that is not pleased with an order of court should appeal it.

Nyako, however, explained that Akpoti-Uduaghan could not be remanded because the contempt offence was in a civil proceeding, hence the fine.

In addition, the court explained that the offense was not weighty enough to warrant the court denying her hearing in the alleged unlawful suspension suit.

The court also dismissed the respondents’ objection to the suit on the grounds that the suit was preemptive, explaining that in a fundamental rights suit, an aggrieved person in anticipation of an unpleasant action can approach the court for redress.

 In his final submission Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Michael Numan, SAN, urged the court to grant his client’s relief by reversing the Senate Committee’s decision. He also counters allegations of contempt of court.

The respondents however, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.

‎

​