In his song “Zimbabwe” from 1979, Bob Marley states, “Every man has the right to decide his own destiny; and in this judgment there is no partiality.” To be suspended, Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan did not have to commit any crimes. In a case where he was the primary accused, there is ample evidence that His Excellency, Dr. Obong Godswill Akpabio, was prepared to impose the harshest penalty possible. It has nothing to do with the Senate.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>
Sadly, it was unable to clarify the problems by being named as an institutional victim of Natasha’s accusations against Akpabio. It appeared that Natasha was being punishment for misbehaving, disrespecting the authority, and refusing to take the seats that were assigned to her.
Who can recall Akpabio telling Natasha she wasn’t in a nightclub back in the day, only to be forced to apologize by social media? Has Akpabio not referred to Natasha as a “court-ordered Senator” in the present case? It alludes to the judges’ ruling that Natasha was the legitimate victor of the Kogi Central Senate seat. Let’s take a moment to consider Akpabio’s disdain for the judiciary, which is a branch of the government that he leads, just like the Senate. He had the opportunity to speak with Natasha, but the courts had ruled in favor of other senators. Do they have less senatorial votes than Akpabio, whom the judges rescued?
Akpabio is so unusual that he doesn’t remember how the Supreme Court’s ruling saved the Senate party ticket from Udom Ekpeudom, the primary winner and retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police. Was Akpabio a primary competitor? No. He focused on the ruling party’s presidential ticket. On the night of the primary, he resigned to make room for Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Additionally, he is “a court-ordered Senator.” One of the mysteries of Nigerian law is how he received the party ticket in a primary that he did not run for, unlike Ahmed Lawan, his predecessor as Senate President. He should always be appreciative of the judiciary for assisting him in getting to the Senate; without it, he would have become at most one of 49 ministers or an ambassador to a remote part of the world.
Akpabio was unaware that he was the one on trial because he was the accused. Since Natasha was the accuser, she ought to have been given the opportunity to present her case against the accused, who was also the judge and showed no remorse for cutting her off whenever she attempted to speak.
Natasha needed to be disciplined. Her right to speak under privilege was the target of intense efforts. She was to remain silent at all costs. What if she felt the need to apologize? No one gave a damn. The Ethics Committee, which was supposed to look at the case for weeks, made a decision in a matter of hours, which was unusually quick.
When it came to his own case, Akpabio waited on judgment. He has been practicing law for about 37 years. He began practicing law in November 1988. The principle Nemo judex in causa sua, or “no one should be a judge in his own case,” is one of the tenets of natural justice. To prevent prejudice, the rule states that no one should judge a case in which he has a stake.
On Thursday, March 6, 2025, there was a lot of bias on the Senate floor. Akpabio was quite happy to lead a session that was solely focused on him. The one on trial was him. He used all of his authority to prevent Natasha from having a voice. The accuser was turned against the accused. The Senate and Akpabio suffered as a result of Natasha’s actions. She was prohibited from speaking. Order 10 of the Senate, which stipulates that a member should always be heard on questions of privilege, did not grant her protection.
Unaware that he was judging himself, Akpabio sat on his judgment and found his accused guilty. Natasha’s petition was deemed “dead on arrival” by a few senators. The senators who thought Akpabio’s power was law deserve a round of applause. Akpabio sat on his lofty seat in the Senate, Nigeria’s highest legislative chamber, savoring the occasion and soaking up the hour of victory. His legal education needed to take a backseat. He once more disregarded a judicial dictum that enshrined the idea that parties to a dispute have the right “to be heard.”
“Let the other party be heard” is what “audi alteram partem” means. Every disputing party should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions and be heard. There should be no unheard condemnation of any party. These fundamental legal concepts are taught in the first years of legal education and are brought up frequently in both the classroom and in daily life. In order to protect themselves from unjust, biased, and ultimately unlawful decisions, non-lawyers invoke these principles.
None of these points point to Akpabio being responsible for Natasha’s accusations against him regarding unwanted approaches. No. If it hadn’t been lying and pending before a court of competent jurisdiction, I would have been interested in the sub-judice subject. Akpabio has committed self-inflicted accusations of bias, which include:
In contrast to past cases when senators tangled with the Senate President, he was sitting in judgment in one in which he was directly accused. Refusing to give Natasha a voice in her cause on multiple occasions · Denying her the ability to protect herself · Disregarding the court order issued on March 6, 2025, by Justice Obiora Egwuatu, which prohibited the Senate Ethics Committee from holding a disciplinary hearing until the court case was resolved and the Committee had had 72 hours to address any concerns brought up in the case.
Akpabio showed his guilt and found himself guilty of bias in several areas. These are some basic, legally binding concerns that Akpabio disregarded. The Federal High Court in Abuja established precedents in 2010 when it decided that the House of Representatives could not suspend members for longer than 14 days. Dino Melayae and ten other members were involved in the case.
In April 2018, Justice Dimgba Igwe also decided that the Senate lacked the authority to suspend a member for longer than 14 days. Ovie Omo-Agege V was the case in question. He was suspended by the Senate for ninety days. Under Akpabio’s direction, Senators Ali Ndume and Abdul Ningi were suspended more recently; the suspensions were later declared void by the courts. A Senate Committee on Appropriations member even proposed a 12-month suspension for Senator Ningi. Ningi had claimed that the Committee had added more than N3 trillion to the Appropriations Bill.
According to Senate Rules Order 67(4), a senator may only be suspended for a maximum of 14 days. Since 2010, the courts have been calling the National Assembly’s attention to its own legislation. Could the Senate, which enacts laws, possibly disobey its own laws? In what ways does it aim to uphold justice, equity, and fairness?
So, is it shocking to anyone that suspensions, which have become a convenient way to suppress free expression, are illegal and have become a part of Senate administration? Do we have to assume that neither Akpabio nor the Senate Ethics Committee are aware of Senate Rules Order 67(4)? Has Natasha’s rights been suspended in violation of the Doctrine of Necessity or the Doctrine of Absolute Necessity?
I sincerely appreciate Senator Akpabio’s unbiased assessment of yourself. At last… Kabir Sani-big, Gov. Nasir Idris’ assistant on Power and Politics, has been suspended by the APC Kebbi State for working with a big snake. According to reports, Mr. Sani-Giant’s acts were against the APC Constitution. The snake’s size appears to have been the problem. But should a little snake be connected to Mr. Giant?CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>
