By Balogun Baaki Adekunle*[1]
INTRODUCTION – In lieu of the suspension ruled on Senator Natasha Akpoti (Senator representing the people of Kogi Central Senatorial District) by the Nigerian Senate, it is worthy of note to categorically state that the senator is serving under the constitutional mandate that brought her into office, like every other senator of the 10th National Assembly. Therefore, it will be a prejudice (to her and her constituents) to have denied her the opportunity to perform her duty; since the suspension has been pronounced on her and even extended beyond the term stated for the punishment. What comes to mind as a matter of legality or otherwise is her suspension and the extended denial after the elapsed time.
DEFINITION OF SUSPENSION
The word “suspension” has been defined by different authorities, which demonstrates its notoriety and also explains how it should be implemented in every relevant circumstance.
Judicial Definition of the word “suspension”
In the case of Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 550:
The Supreme Court defined suspension as holding operation or temporary cessation, deferment or holding in abeyance of an employee’s rights, privileges and obligations under a contract of service, imposed usually as a disciplinary or investigatory measure, without bringing the contract itself to an end.
Coming from this definition, it is established therein that suspension is usually and commonly imposed between contracting parties when the affected person has committed a misconduct or erred during the course of discharging his duties. The implication is that it is rare for a legitimate and constitutional representative to be denied the right to occupy the space created through suspension or any form of disciplinary measure.
Also, in the case of University of Calabar v. Esiaga (1997) 4 NWLR (pt. 502) 719, the Supreme Court defined suspension as a “temporary privation or deprivation, cessation or stoppage of or from privileges and rights of a person”. The court further explained that suspension cannot extinguish or terminate, but is a temporary abeyance from one’s duty or right.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF SENATORS
Under the Nigerian Constitution (1999) as amended, there are certain rights and protections given to the Nigerian Legislators for the effective discharge of their constitutional mandate. Failure to execute these rights and duties amounts to an inability to perform to expectation. These rights are:
- RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: This right is holistic, fundamental and sacrosanct to the citizens of Nigeria in general, let alone a legislator representing a constituency. The right is enshrined in the 1999 constitution, particularly Section 39(1) of the 1999 constitution as amended, and it states:
Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference
Additionally, the legislators are given special immunities that protect them from any word spoken on the floor of the House at the National Assembly. This is displayed in the extant provision of Section 1 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017. This particular provision protects senators from words spoken or written in the course of their legislative duties. The implication of this section is for them to be shielded from the consequence of any word spoken, any reaction exhibited, or any opinion rendered in the course of their duties.
- RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN LAW MAKING AND OVERSIGHT: The primary responsibility of a senator is the right to make law, to initiate bills and also to participate in an oversight function over the executive arm of government. This is vested in the holistic provisions of Section 4 (1) (2) of CFRN (1999). This also includes the right of the legislators to debate on matters and claims for the thorough representation of their people and to serve as a shield on the floor of the house against any infringement, oppression or prejudice that may befall them. The presence of adequate representations from all constituents is integral to the mandate given to legislators by their people.
Hence, this right also incorporated the right of legislators to perform oversight over the executive, which means the right to challenge, query and investigate the executive on any heinous or faulty decision made by them in the course of discharging their constitutional right. This is enshrined in the provisions of Sections 88 & 89 of CFRN (1999) as amended. This is also displayed in the case of El-Rufai v. House of Representatives Committee (2003) FWLR (Pt. 170) 1200(CA), where the House of Representatives summoned El-Rufai, the then DG BPE, over allegations of fraud and misconduct. The Court of Appeal held excellently that the House has the right to summon the plaintiff, which is in line with the constitutional mandate vested in them.
- RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING AND TENURE SECURITY: This means that each member of the legislature has the right to a fair hearing pertaining any decision or allegation levelled against him. He must also have an exclusive right of defence and have security of tenure without interruption whatsoever. He can only lose his seat through the grounds listed by the constitution, which are:
- Defection without division
- Conviction
- Resignation
- Becoming a member of another legislature
- Absence without permission for more than one-third of meetings
By implication, outside these grounds, a Senator cannot be arbitrarily and unjustly removed from office.
- RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION: Senators are elected under Section 48 CFRN (1999), which states that three senators must come from each State of the Federation, and a Senator must come from the Federal Capital Territory. They hold the constitutional right and duty to represent their constituent, which cannot be arbitrarily taken away from them, except as it is highlighted in the provision of Section 68 CFRN (1999) as amended. This means that indefinite or unjustifiable suspension that is ultra vires with the provision of the constitution should not be condoned or welcomed within the extent of the Constitution.
All the rights listed above are exclusively available and enforceable on each member of the National Assembly, without the exclusion of anyone among them. They are equal and none is superior over the other.
ABUSE AND AFFRONT TO THE SANCTITY OF THE JUDICIARY IN THE CASE OF NATASHA V. PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE & ORS.
The judiciary is the hope of the common man; that is, whatever decision made by the court should be final, total and supreme. This has been demonstrated in many cases. It was noted by Justice Chukwudifu in the case of Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Dr. Babatunde Adesanya & Anor (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) 250, in his dictum, where he asserted that:
” We are final not because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final”
Giving an in-depth consideration to this dictum, it is apposite that all decisions made by the Court remain binding on all and sundry. A judiciary of an undisputed integrity is the bedrock of all institutions; therefore, no matter how high a personality may be in a democratic society, utmost respect must be given to the court and its decision
Furthermore, the court serves as the cornerstone, the manuscript that shapes every association, entity and business; whatever the court has pronounced to be unconstitutional should remain so. However, flowing from what emanated between SENATOR NATASHA, PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE & ORS. It is clear how the decision of the court was undermined and disrespected. The case decided at the Federal High Court has been appealed, and states categorically that the suspension of the Plaintiff is unconstitutional, arbitrary, ultra vires and in total contravention of the rule of law. Nonetheless, respect should be given to the decision, especially as the time stated for the suspension has already elapsed. Denial of her constitutional right after that amounts to a total dictatorship, autocracy and a reflection of rule by force, not rule of law. By implication, such an act by the National Assembly prejudices the right of the people in her constituency, as they will lack representation on the floor of the house.
REMEDY AVAILABLE FOR SENATOR NATASHA FOR THE PREJUDICE EXPERIENCED FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
In every democratic society, there is always a remedy for any victim of dictatorship or arbitrary pronouncement. Similarly, it is known that the law is above anybody, any institution or entity. No person should be above the law, and all actions and inactions should be discharged within the purview of the law. In respect of this, the court is the supreme entity that decides the fate of the people; therefore, there should not be an instance where a person would be above the law, God forbid the time‼ God forbid the time‼ This particular standpoint has been demonstrated in a plethora of cases; OJUGWU V. MILITARY GOVT. OF LAGOS STATE, AG FEDERATION V. AG LAGOS, ATIKU ABUBAKAR V. AG FEDERATION. Going by that, since there is a subsisting case in the court in respect of the matter, the Senator has a definite right to enter into filing a motion before the court praying for an immediate resumption after her period to serve the suspension has elapsed. The Senate has no right to stop her from resumption even though the case has been appealed before the Court of Appeal. An interlocutory injunction should be filed in respect of her suspension mandating the Senate to halt the suspension of her, and any failure by the Senate to execute that may amount to contempt, and they could be punished for such.
There’s a common doctrine called stare decisis, which means judicial precedent. It connotes previous judicial decisions that have been taken on certain matters; therefore, on the suspension of a legislator, there have been a plethora of cases that have been decided, which I will mention:
In the case of Ovie Omo-Agege v. Senate, which was decided in the Federal High Court when Senator Ovie Agege was suspended for 90 days over his remark during a debate, the Court nullified the suspension and held that the Senate had no power to suspend a member beyond 14 legislative days.
Going by that, the National Assembly doesn’t have the authoritative right to suspend a legislator beyond 14 days. As for the decision of a superior court, there has not been any record of such case being decided at the Court of Appeal, except for a fact that, this particular case of Natasha has already been appealed to the Court of Appeal, but pending the decision of the court, it will be a miscarriage of justice if the affected Senator Natasha is deprived of the right to represent her people.
CONCLUSION
In a democratic system of government, all the actions and engagements of all governmental bodies are meant to be within the scope of law; no abuse must be made to the sanctity of law and decisions from the courts. Heavy recourse must be made to whatever becomes legal or otherwise; therefore, since the court has pronounced the judgment of unconstitutionality of this suspension, the National Assembly ought to have called it off and withdrawn from it. In the worst-case scenario, the suspension of the Senator has already extended beyond the stipulated period, effectively denying her the opportunity to carry out her constitutional duties. However, I believe that in due course, the National Assembly will act with due diligence and put the suspension on hold.
* A 400L student of Common and Islamic Law in the prestigious University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. He could be reached via 08101762793 or balogunbaaki95@gmail.com
