By Ayoodele Popoola

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduangan was not suspended on the allegation of sexual assault she leveled against the Senate President; she was suspended on the basis of her moral misconduct by bringing her husband for a kissing session in the plenary, when the senate was sitting discussing urgent issues of national importance.

Tomisin Fajulugbe Esq.

The media has been agog with the news of the suspension of the Senator representing Kogi Central, Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan, and from all indications, there has been series of opinions, both on legal and moral stands as to the correctness and legality of the suspension. In analysing the legality, it is imperative to briefly state the background facts.

On March 6, 2025, the Nigerian Senate suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan for the period of six (6) months following the report of the Senate Committee on Ethics, privileges and public petition upon gross misconduct and violations of the Senate Standing Orders 2023, with regards to Section 6.1 & 6.2.  The suspension stemmed from clashes with the Senate President after the Senator’s seat was reassigned, and upon contesting the change, she cited the Senate rules. While the Senate President maintained his stance and also referred her to the in-house rules, as well as the powers of the presiding senator to change seats of senators, she cited instance of sexual harassment from the Senate President to herself; and has further challenged the suspension, asserting that it was illegal and related to the harassment allegations. She has further escalated the issue by making a formal report at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and granted series of media interviews on the unlawfulness of her suspension and the withholding of her salaries and those of her aides. Since then, there has been series of opinions as to the legality of the suspension.

An important fact to mention is that despite an alleged violation of the House rules; a Senator, beyond his stand in the parliament, represents the interest of his constituency.  However, the Senate is guided by its rules, being an integral part of the arms of government. A close look at the rules dispassionately would reveal that there was indeed a violation of the rules on the side of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, as she violated the provisions relating to legislative decorum and conduct. These rules mandate a Senator to speak when recognised by the Senate President and adhere to sitting position, which the erring senator refused to comply with, and consequent upon such, the House was very right and correct in the disciplinary action. This is further grounded in Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution which gives the Senate the power to regulate its own procedure.

Similarly, it suffices to mention that upon invitation to appear before the Senate committee to defend or justify her actions, the senator refused to appear, despite formal invitations which invariably led to the report of the committee justifying the suspension, as the committee reported that the suspension was unrelated to the harassment, but rather, to the persistent misconduct and disregard for Senate standing orders.

However, not minding the above position, the punishment of suspension for a period of six months does not seem justified. First is the breach of the principle of fair hearing- Nemo judex in causa sua- meaning you cannot be a judge in your own cause. It appears that in the process leading to the eventual suspension, the Senate President should have stepped down for the Deputy Senate President to preside over the sitting leading to the suspension. Respectfully, it breaches the principle of fair hearing, also with the provisions of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

It is also important to mention that as held in plethora of authorities, the suspension for a period of six-months is unjustified, as it leads to the absence of representation to the constituent members- Kogi Central in this regard, in that for the period of six months, the constituent will go unrepresented. By the Senate rules, a Senator can only be suspended for fourteen days, and this has been upheld by the court in declaring unconstitutional the suspension of Ali Ndume in 2018. Further, in the case of Bauchi State House of Assembly v. Samson Danna (2017), the court was clear when it held that lawmakers cannot be suspended by their peers, as they are not employees of the legislatures but representatives of the people, and going by these precedents, it appears that the 6-month suspension seems far-fetched, as it deprives the people of Kogi Central representation on the floor of the Senate.

It is consequent on the above that the suspension raises a dilemma- an examination of the legality of the process leading to the suspension, coupled with the examination of the length of the term of suspension; vis a vis the effect of the suspension in proper representation of the people.

The media has been agog with the news of the suspension of the Senator representing Kogi Central, Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan, and from all indications, there has been series of opinions, both on legal and moral stands as to the correctness and legality of the suspension. In analysing the legality, it is imperative to briefly state the background facts.

On March 6, 2025, the Nigerian Senate suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan for the period of six (6) months following the report of the Senate Committee on Ethics, privileges and public petition upon gross misconduct and violations of the Senate Standing Orders 2023, with regards to Section 6.1 & 6.2.  The suspension stemmed from clashes with the Senate President after the Senator’s seat was reassigned, and upon contesting the change, she cited the Senate rules. While the Senate President maintained his stance and also referred her to the in-house rules, as well as the powers of the presiding senator to change seats of senators, she cited instance of sexual harassment from the Senate President to herself; and has further challenged the suspension, asserting that it was illegal and related to the harassment allegations. She has further escalated the issue by making a formal report at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and granted series of media interviews on the unlawfulness of her suspension and the withholding of her salaries and those of her aides. Since then, there has been series of opinions as to the legality of the suspension.

An important fact to mention is that despite an alleged violation of the House rules; a Senator, beyond his stand in the parliament, represents the interest of his constituency.  However, the Senate is guided by its rules, being an integral part of the arms of government. A close look at the rules dispassionately would reveal that there was indeed a violation of the rules on the side of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, as she violated the provisions relating to legislative decorum and conduct. These rules mandate a Senator to speak when recognised by the Senate President and adhere to sitting position, which the erring senator refused to comply with, and consequent upon such, the House was very right and correct in the disciplinary action. This is further grounded in Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution which gives the Senate the power to regulate its own procedure.

Similarly, it suffices to mention that upon invitation to appear before the Senate committee to defend or justify her actions, the senator refused to appear, despite formal invitations which invariably led to the report of the committee justifying the suspension, as the committee reported that the suspension was unrelated to the harassment, but rather, to the persistent misconduct and disregard for Senate standing orders.

However, not minding the above position, the punishment of suspension for a period of six months does not seem justified. First is the breach of the principle of fair hearing- Nemo judex in causa sua- meaning you cannot be a judge in your own cause. It appears that in the process leading to the eventual suspension, the Senate President should have stepped down for the Deputy Senate President to preside over the sitting leading to the suspension. Respectfully, it breaches the principle of fair hearing, also with the provisions of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

It is also important to mention that as held in plethora of authorities, the suspension for a period of six-months is unjustified, as it leads to the absence of representation to the constituent members- Kogi Central in this regard, in that for the period of six months, the constituent will go unrepresented. By the Senate rules, a Senator can only be suspended for fourteen days, and this has been upheld by the court in declaring unconstitutional the suspension of Ali Ndume in 2018. Further, in the case of Bauchi State House of Assembly v. Samson Danna (2017), the court was clear when it held that lawmakers cannot be suspended by their peers, as they are not employees of the legislatures but representatives of the people, and going by these precedents, it appears that the 6-month suspension seems far-fetched, as it deprives the people of Kogi Central representation on the floor of the Senate.

It is consequent on the above that the suspension raises a dilemma- an examination of the legality of the process leading to the suspension, coupled with the examination of the length of the term of suspension; vis a vis the effect of the suspension in proper representation of the people.

The legality of suspending a female senator amid controversy over sexual harassment allegations against the Senate President, who presided over the suspension session, hinges on the Nigerian Senate’s Standing Orders and the 1999 Constitution. The Senate rules permit suspension for disruptive behavior as Section 60 of the Constitution grants procedural autonomy which allows the Senate President to lead such a session without immediate legal barrier. However, if the suspension follows the senator’s public accusation of sexual harassment against the Senate President, it raises concerns of retaliation, potentially violating her constitutional rights to free expression and fair hearing, especially if the allegations are dismissed without investigation.

The suspension of a legislator for disruptive behavior, particularly when the parliamentarian in question has raised allegations of serious personal rights violations against a colleague, is a complex issue that requires careful examination under law and equity.

The Nigerian Senate operates under its Standing Orders, which provide the framework for maintaining decorum and discipline within the chamber.

Order 67 borders on the conduct of senators which stipulates that senators must adhere to standards of behavior that uphold the dignity of the Senate. Disruptive actions such as refusing to follow seating arrangements, speaking without recognition, or engaging in conduct deemed disrespectful to the Senate leadership can be interpreted as breaches of this order. The suspension can be imposed for a specified period, during which the senator is barred from participating in legislative activities, accessing their office, or receiving allowances.

The rules grant the Senate significant discretion to discipline its members. However, they also raise questions about fairness and potential abuse, especially when the behavior in question involves raising allegations of serious misconduct like Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan’s sexual harassment accusation against a fellow senator. Any senator alleging a violation of their personal rights could argue that suspension for raising such a matter infringes on constitutional rights to freedom of expression pursuant to Section 39, especially if the suspension appears retaliatory rather than disciplinary.

Likewise Section 36 mandates that any person facing a determination of their rights or obligations must be given a fair hearing. If a senator’s suspension is tied to allegations they’ve made, but the Senate dismisses those allegations without proper investigation, it could be argued that the principle of fair hearing has been breached.

Therefore the suspension of a legislator for disruptive behavior, when linked to allegations of sexual harassment, could be construed as an abuse of office.

If the suspension is a direct response to the senator’s allegations rather than independent disruptive acts, it may suggest an intent to silence dissent or protect the Senate President and it undermines the Senate’s integrity as a deliberative body tasked with upholding justice.

The Senate’s Ethics Committee has the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct by senators. If it rejects claims on procedural grounds without substantive inquiry, it risks appearing biased or complicit, especially as it involves the leadership of the body.

Moreover, a six-month suspension, as seen in this case, is a severe penalty that strips a senator of their ability to represent constituents. If the disruptive behavior (e.g., protesting a seat change or speaking out of turn) does not objectively warrant such a sanction, it may indicate an abuse of the Senate’s disciplinary powers to suppress the allegations.

Pursuant to the Senate’s rules and Nigerian laws, suspension for disruptive behavior is permissible but must be exercised judiciously. When tied to serious allegations like sexual abuse, it demands scrutiny to ensure it does not constitute an abuse of office. The Senate must balance its authority to self-regulate with its duty to uphold justice and constitutional rights and not seen to propagate cover-ups over accountability.

The female senator could seek legal recourse in a Nigerian law court to reverse the suspension by filing a suit alleging constitutional violations. She might request a judicial review, citing precedents like Dino Melaye v. Senate (2018), where courts intervened in suspensions deemed unconstitutional. Success would depend on proving the suspension was disproportionate, biased, or lacked due process.

The legality of suspending a female senator amid controversy over sexual harassment allegations against the Senate President, who presided over the suspension session, hinges on the Nigerian Senate’s Standing Orders and the 1999 Constitution. The Senate rules permit suspension for disruptive behavior as Section 60 of the Constitution grants procedural autonomy which allows the Senate President to lead such a session without immediate legal barrier. However, if the suspension follows the senator’s public accusation of sexual harassment against the Senate President, it raises concerns of retaliation, potentially violating her constitutional rights to free expression and fair hearing, especially if the allegations are dismissed without investigation.

The suspension of a legislator for disruptive behavior, particularly when the parliamentarian in question has raised allegations of serious personal rights violations against a colleague, is a complex issue that requires careful examination under law and equity.

The Nigerian Senate operates under its Standing Orders, which provide the framework for maintaining decorum and discipline within the chamber.

Order 67 borders on the conduct of senators which stipulates that senators must adhere to standards of behavior that uphold the dignity of the Senate. Disruptive actions such as refusing to follow seating arrangements, speaking without recognition, or engaging in conduct deemed disrespectful to the Senate leadership can be interpreted as breaches of this order. The suspension can be imposed for a specified period, during which the senator is barred from participating in legislative activities, accessing their office, or receiving allowances.

The rules grant the Senate significant discretion to discipline its members. However, they also raise questions about fairness and potential abuse, especially when the behavior in question involves raising allegations of serious misconduct like Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan’s sexual harassment accusation against a fellow senator. Any senator alleging a violation of their personal rights could argue that suspension for raising such a matter infringes on constitutional rights to freedom of expression pursuant to Section 39, especially if the suspension appears retaliatory rather than disciplinary.

Likewise Section 36 mandates that any person facing a determination of their rights or obligations must be given a fair hearing. If a senator’s suspension is tied to allegations they’ve made, but the Senate dismisses those allegations without proper investigation, it could be argued that the principle of fair hearing has been breached.

Therefore the suspension of a legislator for disruptive behavior, when linked to allegations of sexual harassment, could be construed as an abuse of office.

If the suspension is a direct response to the senator’s allegations rather than independent disruptive acts, it may suggest an intent to silence dissent or protect the Senate President and it undermines the Senate’s integrity as a deliberative body tasked with upholding justice.

The Senate’s Ethics Committee has the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct by senators. If it rejects claims on procedural grounds without substantive inquiry, it risks appearing biased or complicit, especially as it involves the leadership of the body.

Moreover, a six-month suspension, as seen in this case, is a severe penalty that strips a senator of their ability to represent constituents. If the disruptive behavior (e.g., protesting a seat change or speaking out of turn) does not objectively warrant such a sanction, it may indicate an abuse of the Senate’s disciplinary powers to suppress the allegations.

Pursuant to the Senate’s rules and Nigerian laws, suspension for disruptive behavior is permissible but must be exercised judiciously. When tied to serious allegations like sexual abuse, it demands scrutiny to ensure it does not constitute an abuse of office. The Senate must balance its authority to self-regulate with its duty to uphold justice and constitutional rights and not seen to propagate cover-ups over accountability.

The female senator could seek legal recourse in a Nigerian law court to reverse the suspension by filing a suit alleging constitutional violations. She might request a judicial review, citing precedents like Dino Melaye v. Senate (2018), where courts intervened in suspensions deemed unconstitutional. Success would depend on proving the suspension was disproportionate, biased, or lacked due process.

Yemi Aladetoyinbo Esq.

The Senate has published Standing Rules and Orders that regulate and guide its  conduct and activities on a daily basis, which is their guiding principles or Modus Operandi. In a way of simplification, the Senate does not exist in a vacuum, even though it was created by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The virtue of Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, provides for the legislative arm of the government, Section 5 provides for the executive arm of government, Section 6 provides for the judiciary, and each arm of government has its own ‘Modus Operandi’.

The Senate as one of the arms of the National Assembly, from the letters of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Regulations, the Standing Orders of the Senate, every member when sworn in and administered with the oath of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, either by the Senater President or the Clerk of the House is bound not to disobey or bridge any of the provisions of the Standing Orders, which means when someone becomes a member, he or she is bound by the rules of the House.  He or she must be totally submissive. Their characters and conducts are regulated

In this case, the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduagan, the Senator representing Kogi West, by the Senate is in order and in line with the guiding principles of the Senate.

It is not just the order of the presiding President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, the fact is that there are some allegations leveled against the Senate President by Senator Natasha on essence of sexual assault and harrasment  on her. We have to define what sexual assault is in conjunction and in a holistic interpretation. Whether in a juxtaposition, whether sexual assault and sexual harassment mean the same thing, whether there is attempted rape.

Most of the custodians of the Senate Standing Rules and Orders are lawyers, including the Senate President, Majority Leader, and Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, and any member of the Senate can call anybody to Order, citing the specific provisions of the Standing Rules and Orders.

To narrow it down to what the Standing Orders say with respect to the suspension of parliamentarians, the allegation of Senator Natasha was submitted to the Ethics Committee of the Senate, which has 39 members out of the 109 members of the Senate. When the petition was submitted to the whole House, the petition was read and the Senate President committed the petition to the committee on ethics to look at it and investigate it.

The Senate President agreed to submit himself for questioning, which he did. Akpabio told the committee that he didn’t sexually harass Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduagan. When Senator Natasha was called upon to appear before the committee to defend herself, she never appeared to substantiate the allegations and her claims as contained in the petition submitted.

If there is any case of sexual intimidation or connectivity that has been muted on her by the Senate President, since Natasha filed a lawsuit in the court, she should not have degenerated to the point of coming to the Senate and kissing her husband during a plenary session, where her husband is not a Senator. The Senate is a hallowed chambers where certain things must not happen. The whole matter and the character of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has become a matter of public opprobrium and idiocy.

According to the Senate Spokesperson, Senator Adaramodu, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduangan was not suspended on the allegation of sexual assault she leveled against the Senate President; she was suspended on the basis of her moral misconduct by bringing her husband for a kissing session in  the plenary, when the senate was sitting discussing urgent issues of national importance.

On whether the National Assembly can suspend any of its members, Order 10 of the Standing Rules of the Senate make arrangements for suspension.