The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has affirmed the constitutional powers of the Nigerian Senate to regulate its internal affairs, ruling that courts lack jurisdiction to interfere in legislative disciplinary processes except in cases of clear constitutional breach.
In a judgment delivered on February 9, 2026, the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, faulting the Federal High Court for assuming jurisdiction over matters strictly within the legislative domain.
A statement issued by the Senate Spokesman, Yemi Adaramodu, yesterday, stated that the court held that issues relating to seat reallocation, conduct of debates, referral of members to the Ethics Committee, and disciplinary actions fall squarely within the Senate’s constitutional mandate.
In upholding all the grounds of the cross-appeal filed by Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, the court declared that the Senate acted lawfully in exercising its disciplinary powers. It further clarified that the trial court’s comments on the six-month suspension imposed on Akpoti-Uduaghan amounted to mere obiter dictum and did not affect the validity of the Senate’s decision.
The court stressed that the suspension was neither excessive nor unlawful, noting that internal disciplinary actions taken in line with Senate rules do not infringe on a lawmaker’s fundamental rights.
According to the judgment, such rights only arise within the framework of compliance with legislative procedures, and members are obligated to submit to the institution’s internal regulatory mechanisms.
However, the appellate court struck out the ₦5 million fine imposed on Senator Natasha for alleged contempt, ruling that the sanction was improperly issued. It held that the contempt allegation was criminal in nature and should have followed established criminal procedures, including the issuance of Forms 48 and 49, which were not complied with.
The ruling, the court said, reinforces the doctrine of separation of powers and strengthens parliamentary autonomy, affirming that judicial intervention in legislative affairs is only permissible where there is a demonstrable violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
