Legislative Arrogance or Judicial Restraint? The Natasha Akpoti Senate Standoff

The recent standoff between the Nigerian Senate and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan offers a revealing window into the contentious relationship between the legislature and judiciary — both pillars of democracy now stuck in implicit contempt.

After a judgment by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court on July 4, where she was said to have termed Natasha’s suspension as “excessive,” further adding that the court feels she should be reinstated, the senator went ahead to inform the Senate that she would be returning to resume legislative activities.

But there is a catch: the court short of having made a binding order for her reinstatement. That wording the court “believes” is now the basis on which the Senate has based its opposition. Citing this judicial vagueness, the Senate writes that Senator Natasha is suspended pending listed conditions which includes an apology in writing and payment of a ₦5 million fine.

Should the Court Have Made a Stiffer Decision?

All this drama raises a fundamental question for Nigeria’s democratic health: Did the court exercise prudence at the expense of justice? By choosing to express an opinion, rather than a declaratory or mandatory order, the judiciary may have accorded legislative impunity a blank cheque. In periods when constitutional rights are at stake, the court cannot just advise, it must protect.

This judicial restraint now appears to be an opportunity lost to hold that no branch of government is above the law, especially in the case of the rights of an elected member and, by extension, the constituents who had elected her.

Is the Senate Stalling Justice with Procedure?

While the Senate demanded to follow procedure, helpful to the law as this was, its own ethics are in doubt. Is discipline served justly? Must an elected member crawl back before a chamber potentially misusing its internal rules?

This isn’t just about Natasha; it’s about whether legislative process can be used as political instruments and a silencing device, especially in a chamber that is supposed to be an exemplar of responsibility.

What Precedent Are We Setting?

More insidious than the standoff itself is the precedent that it creates. When legislatures and courts stall, the whole system becomes discredited. It tells people that institutions will only follow other institutions when it is in their interest, not necessarily when it is just.

If this trend continues, we can be bringing about an era in which leaders chosen by the people are punished without appeal, courts whisper instead of adjudicate, and justice is determined not by law, but by the caprice of the powerful.

The Way Forward

Nigeria’s democracy needs healing and openness. The courts must speak out more loudly when constitutional boundaries are crossed. Parliament must exercise discipline with equanimity. Most of all, no institution may believe itself to be beyond redemption.