The Nigerian Senate has welcomed the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which upheld the authority of the upper legislative chamber to discipline its members for misconduct.
A three-man panel of the appellate court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on Monday, affirmed the Senate’s decision to suspend the Kogi Central lawmaker, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, over alleged misconduct. The court ruled that the suspension fell within the constitutional and procedural powers of the Senate.
Reading the judgment, Justice Abba Mohammed held that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s parliamentary privileges and constitutional rights were not violated by the disciplinary action taken against her. The court further stated that the Senate acted in line with its standing rules.
According to the court, Section 66(4) of the Senate Standing Rules empowers the chamber to impose disciplinary measures on its members to maintain order and decorum during legislative proceedings.
Reacting to the judgment, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, described the ruling as a clear affirmation of legislative independence.
In a statement issued in Abuja, Adaramodu said the decision reinforced the principle of separation of powers and confirmed the Senate’s constitutional authority to regulate its internal affairs.
“The judgment decisively reinforces parliamentary autonomy and separation of powers, confirming that the Senate’s power to discipline its members is constitutionally protected,” he said, adding that judicial intervention would only arise in cases of clear constitutional or statutory violations.
He further explained that the court clarified that lawful disciplinary actions taken by the Senate do not amount to a breach of a lawmaker’s fundamental rights.
“Members are required to comply with Senate rules governing participation, and such rights are not activated outside those rules,” Adaramodu said.
He concluded that the ruling underscores the position that lawmakers must submit to internal legislative discipline, noting that the courts would only intervene where there is a demonstrable breach of the Constitution.
