By Ikeddy Isiguzo

Every man has a right to decide his own destiny; And in this judgment, there is no partiality – Bob Marley in his 1979 song, Zimbabwe

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan did not need to commit any offence to be suspended. Evidence abounds that His Excellency, Dr Obong Godswill Akpabio, was ready to inflict maximum punishment in a case in which he was the principal accused.

The Senate was tangential to the matter. Its inclusion as an institutional victim of Natasha’s allegations against Akpabio failed woefully to befuddle the issues. Natasha was seemingly being punished for not accepting seats allocated to her, speaking out of turn, and not respecting the mace.

Who remembers Akpabio, in the earlier days, telling Natasha she was not in a night club though social media pressure extracted an apology from him? In the current case, has Akpabio not described Natasha as a “court-ordered Senator”? It was a reference to the courts declaring Natasha the rightful winner of the Kogi Central Senatorial seat.

For a fleeting moment, let us ponder the contempt that Akpabio has for the Judiciary, an arm of the government like the Senate that he heads. He could have been talking to Natasha but there were other Senators who the courts declared winners of their cases. Are they less Senator than Akpabio who the courts saved?

Akpabio is so uncommon that he forgets how the Supreme Court’s judgment retrieved the party ticket for the Senate from Udom Ekpeudom, a retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police who won the primary.

Was Akpabio a contestant in the primary? No. His attention was on the presidential ticket of the ruling party. He stepped down for Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the night of the primary.

He, too, is “a court-ordered Senator”. How he got the party ticket in a primary he did not contest, like his predecessor as Senate President, Ahmed Lawan, is among the mysteries of Nigerian law. He should perpetually be grateful to the Judiciary for helping him to the Senate, without which he would have at most been one of 49 Ministers or an ambassador to some obscure corner of the globe.
Unknown to Akpabio, he was the accused and, therefore,e, the one on trial. Natasha was the accuser and should have been allowed to state her case, against an accused who was also the judge and had no tinge of guilt in shutting Natasha up each time she tried to speak.

Natasha had to be punished. Extensive efforts were mounted against her right to speak under privilege. She was not to speak under any circumstances. Suppose she wanted to apologise? Nobody cared.
The Ethics Committee that was meant to investigate the matter in weeks showed uncommon speed in reaching a verdict within hours.

And Akpabio sat on judgment over his own case. He is a lawyer of almost 37 years standing. He has been a lawyer since November 1988.
Principle One of the principles of natural justice, “Nemo judex in causa sua”, which means that no one should be a judge in his own case. The principle of no person judging a case in which he has an interest is meant to avoid bias.

Bias was plentiful on Thursday, 6 March 2025, on the floor of the Senate. Akpabio had no qualms about conducting a session that was about him. He was the one on trial. He pulled the full weight of his office to deny Natasha a say. The accuser became the accused.
Akpabio and the Senate were the victims of Natasha’s conduct.

She was not allowed to speak. She was denied protection under the Senate’s Order 10, which states a member should be always heard on matters of privilege.
Akpabio sat on judgment finding his accuser guilty without knowing he was convicting himself. Some Senators rated Natasha’s petition “dead on arrival”. Those Senators deserve a round of applause for believing that Akpabio’s might is law.

At the Senate, the highest law-making body in Nigeria, Akpabio perched on his exalted seat relishing the moment, soaking up the hour of triumph.
It was time for his legal training to take a back seat. He again ignored another legal maxim that etched the principle that protected the rights of parties to a dispute “to be heard”.

“Audi alteram partem” means “let the other party be heard.” All parties to a dispute should be allowed to be heard and present their case. No party should be condemned unheard.

These are basic law principles that are taught in the earliest years of legal education but repeatedly mentioned throughout school and throughout life. Non-lawyers quote these principles to seek protection from unfair, biased, decisions that are ultimately illegal.

Nothing in all these suggests that Akpabio is guilty of the allegations Natasha made against him on inappropriate advances. No. The matter is sub-judice and would have been of interest to me if it was not lying and pending before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Akpabio is guilty of self-inflicted charges of bias thus:
. Sitting in judgment in a matter in which he was directly accused, very different from other matters where Senators tangoed with the Senate President
. Repeatedly denying Natasha a right to speak in her case
. Refusing her right to defend herself
. Ignoring Justice Obiora Egwuatu’s court order of 6 March 2025 that forbade the Senate Ethics Committee from a disciplinary hearing until the matter in court had been heard and 72 hours for the Committee to respond to issues raised in the case.

These are areas Akpabio convicted himself of bias and proved his guilt. Here are fundamental issues that Akpabio ignored, they are also legal.
Precedents date back to 2010 when a Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the House of Representatives could not suspend members for more than 14 days. The case involved Dino Melayae and 10 other members.

Justice Dimgba Igwe also ruled in April 2018, that the Senate had no powers to suspend a member for more than 14 days. The case was Ovie Omo-Agege V The Senate which had suspended him for 90 days.

More recently, Senators Ali Ndume and Abdul Ningi were suspended under Akpabio’s leadership, and the courts nullified the suspensions. One member of the Senate Committee on Appropriation even suggested that Senator Ningi should be suspended for 12 months. Ningi
had alleged that the Committee padded the Appropriation Bill by over N3 trillion.
Order 67(4) of the Senate Rules states that a Senator can only be suspended for a period not exceeding 14 days. What the courts have been doing since 2010 is to draw the attention of the National Assembly to its own law.

Is it imaginable that the Senate that makes laws, would not obey its own laws? How does it intend to maintain, fairness, equity, and justice?
Would it surprise anyone then that illegal as the suspensions – that have become handy for muffling free speech – are, they have been ingrained in the management of the Senate?

Are we to believe that Akpabio and the Senate Ethics Committee are unaware of Order 67 (4) of the Senate Rules? Has a Doctrine of Necessity or Doctrine of Absolute Necessity been used to put Natasha’s rights at abeyance?
Thanks very much, Senator Akpabio, for your impartial judgment of yourself.

Finally…
APC Kebbi State has suspended Kabir Sani-Giant, Gov. Nasir Idris’ aide on Power and Politics for coming to work with a giant snake. Mr Sani-Giant’s actions reportedly violated APC’s Constitution. It seems the issue was the snake’s size. But should Mr. Giant be associated with a small snake?

*ISIGUZO is a major commentator on minor issues

“Self-service is the game for the powers that be and the operatives are chosen carefully“— Jibrin Ibrahim

Shamseldeen Babatunde Ogunjimi, who has just been appointed the country’s new accountant general of the federation (AGF), was between 2011 and 2012 indicted in the N2 billion police payroll fraud. Also, Ogunjimi was reported to have come fourth in the examination for the selection of the Accountant General, scoring 62 per cent in the written examination, according to a memo signed by Gabriel Aduda, the permanent secretary, Ministry of Defence.

The most accurate way to describe Nigerian politics today is that state and society have been captured by an efficient and ruthless band that is re-creating politics and the political economy in its image. On a daily basis, people are lamenting about the absence of rules, ethics and red lines in politics and the economy, as the cabal in power does as it pleases and we the citizens watch and wonder whether it’s the new reality or a new rascally Nollywood production.

We all watched the skit on the Lagos State House of Assembly. The Speaker was removed, a new one was elected by a massive majority of members. As in all good Nollywood films, the new Speaker was safe because the majority of members supported her and, clearly, there was nothing former Speaker Obasa could do, or so we thought. Suddenly, the music became louder, Speaker Mojisola Meranda saw that she was all alone as her entire security team had been withdrawn. Former Speaker Obasa turned his appellation from former to current, and majestically moved in to re-take control of the Lagos House of Assembly. He demanded that the legislators should come and pay homage to him, but only four of them turned up. As the drama moved to a crescendo, phone calls were made, instructions issued, and the entire House rallied and paid homage to Obasa. My sympathies to Meranda, there are powers and there are powers.

While the Lagos show was on-going, another was happening in the Supreme Court. Suddenly, the entire basis of Nigerian jurisprudence, which is based on precedence, was thrown into the waste paper basket as Governor Fubara, who thought he was in power, was told in no uncertain terms that there are powers and there are powers. The elections he organised into the Rivers State local government councils were thrown out. The legislators who had sworn to impeach him, after he challenged their right to abandon the party on whose tickets they won elections to join the ruling party, were recognised as legitimate and the Central Bank was instructed to stop sending monies to the State Government. It was such a blatant partisan action that has not been seen in recent years. Sorry Fubara, there are powers and there are powers.

It’s difficult to avoid the Nollywood imagery as I was watching a senator complaining bitterly on Channels Television that he saw his colleague, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, come into the Chambers with her husband and he kissed her. It was totally unacceptable for a husband to kiss his wife in the Chambers, he explained. I was confused and did not know whether to cry or laugh. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had made disturbing allegations of sexual harassment against the President of the Senate. If such a highly placed women felt the need to make such a serious allegation against a powerful individual, the least any serious democracy could do is to take such an allegation seriously and investigate it.

The decision taken was to throw out her petition without investigation and charge her with “crimes” of disrespect to constituted authority, after all there are powers and there are powers. The argument used by the Committee Chairman, Mr Imasuen, was that “Mrs Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition violated the Senate’s procedural rules, as she had personally signed the document.” Of course, a petition not signed by the complainant would also have no legal standing. All sorts of stories were then fabricated against her. I refuse to dignify the stories they are currently spreading to impugn her integrity and would not talk about them. We are sinking too low.

While all this drama was going on, I was alarmed to read that a confidential report exclusively obtained by Nairametrics from a reliable source tracking the movements of motor tanker vessels, which monitors cargo tanks entering the country, revealed that the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) imported 159,000 metric tons of Premium Motor Spirit (also known as petrol) between 1 February and 12 February. Based on a standard conversion of 1,341 litre per metric ton, this translates to approximately 213 million litres of petrol, imported by the state-owned oil company, according to the Motor Tanker Vessels report.

The revelation comes at a time Dangote Refinery, which can supply the country’s needs, is locked in a legal dispute with NNPCL and major oil marketers over the importation of refined petroleum products, which are already being produced locally without any shortfall. The interests of Nigeria do not appear to matter in our governance mechanism. It is all about self-interest. That is why despite the January deadline set by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) for the adoption of cleaner fuels and vehicles to reduce air pollution across the region, Nigeria has continued to import petroleum products that exceed the permissible sulphur limit under this regulation.

In December 2024, the NNPCL announced the restart of the 125,000 barrels per day (bpd) Warri Refinery and Petrochemical Company (WRPC), which was approved for rehabilitation in 2021 for $897 million. This announcement followed reports that the Port Harcourt refinery’s 60,000 bpd phase one had begun refining key fuels. Nigeria operates four national refineries: one in Kaduna, one in Warri, and two in Port Harcourt. The refurbishment of these refineries, in addition to the operations of the Dangote refinery, was expected to reduce Nigeria’s importation of petroleum products and make the country fuel independent. However, the importation of refined products continues on a large scale, despite the growing number of local refineries.

To conclude, choosing the cast that is producing these stories is something worth understanding. Good qualifications are necessary.

A professor of Political Science and development consultant/expert, Jibrin Ibrahim is a Senior Fellow of the Centre for Democracy and Development, and Chair of the Editorial Board of PREMIUM TIMES.

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

The political control of the resources of the territory known as Rivers State in Nigeria’s Niger Delta has been a site of curious jurisprudence since the Acting Consul of the Oil Rivers Protectorate, Harry Johnston, procured the judicial liquidation of King Jaja of Opobo in December 1887 in Accra, present capital of Ghana. The charge against King Jaja was the violation of a treaty obligation to assist the British “in the execution of such duties as may be assigned.” At the end of proceedings which lasted less than one day before a forum described by Elvar Ingimundarsson as a “Kangaroo court”, King Jaja was convicted and sentenced to exile. The court also prohibited the people of Opobo from designating a replacement for him.

At the end of February 2025, Nigeria’s Supreme Court continued a tradition of afflicting the people of the territory of Rivers State with curious jurisprudence. Separated by 137 years, the decision of the Supreme Court in the latest of the legal disputes from the political rift between incumbent governor, Siminalayi Fubara, and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, reprises essential parallels with the trial and exile of King Jaja with haunting similarity.

Now, as then, the underlying dispute is really about “a treaty”; in this case allegedly between the governor and his predecessor, the terms of which also appear to be about “the execution of such duties as may be assigned….” The court orders are against a ruling figure (Governor Fubara) from Opobo and the political effect is to seek to exile him from office while precluding any other Opobo person from replacing him.

Context is necessary to understand the case that the Supreme Court had to decide. Going into the 2023 election, the governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike, was term-limited. In 2020 and 2021, he publicly declared that he would not impose a successor on the state. In 2023, he did. His choice was a little-known public servant from Opobo-Nkoro, Sim Fubara. After the election, their relationship disintegrated. The reasons are subliminal in this case; the consequences are explicit.

In December 2023, 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly loyal to Nyesom Wike, including the Speaker, Martin Amaewhule, ostentatiously announced that they had defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). In 2015, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that such defection is permissible only if the political party from which the legislators seek to defect is so hopelessly splintered that it “makes it impossible or impracticable for [the] political party to function as such.” If not, according to the court, “the defector automatically looses (sic) his seat.”

With the defection of Martin Amaewhule and his 26 other colleagues, the House of Assembly of Rivers State became factionalised. The remaining five members were loyal to the incumbent governor. Shortly after the defection of the Amaewhule faction in December 2023, the premises of the Rivers State House of Assembly were demolished ostensibly on the orders of the state government. The faction loyal to the state governor relocated to the Government House where, shortly thereafter, they purported to pass into law the 2024 Appropriation Bill for the State, which became law when the governor promptly assented to it.

The outbreak of litigation that followed has been inexhaustible. The appeal determined by a five-person panel of the Supreme Court on 28 February 2025 is one them. Essentially, it sought orders to restrain the Central Bank of Nigeria from remitting to Rivers State, its share of the proceeds from the Federation Account except to finance a budget passed by the Amaewhule faction of the State House of Assembly. In other words, this was litigation asking the judiciary to take sides in what is in fact a very grubby dispute over control of Rivers State’s money.

This case traveled up to the Supreme Court with supreme alacrity. The Federal High Court delivered judgment on 30 October 2024, a mere three and a half months after filing on 15 July. Not wishing to be outdone, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 13 December 2024, less than a month and a half later. The Supreme Court has been equally supersonic in bringing the case to judgment.

The Supreme Court dealt with two issues when it should have addressed at least three. First, it affirmed the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear the case. Next, on the question whether the rump of the House of Assembly of Rivers State loyal to the governor could constitutionally sit to pass the 2024 budget, it held that they could not. In support of this position, the court cited precedent applicable to when the legislature sits on impeachment, a special procedure for which the constitutionally prescribed parliamentary arithmetic is different.

The third issue, it left unattended. The Court simply proceeded without deliberation or reasoning to grant all the orders asked for.

An injunction, the principal relief sought in this case, is notoriously a remedy in equity, only granted deliberatively. Over one century ago, the path-breaking decision in The Lusitania laid down the principle that “as a general rule of both civil and common law…. the remedy must be commensurate with the injury received.”

There are four glaring problems with this Supreme Court judgment. The first is not what is in it but what is missing. Lawyers claim that “equity does not act in vain.” The Supreme Court did not bother to provide any reasoning or justification for its orders, leaving it open to legitimate accusations of having acted in vain or in a transaction. Granting the court every latitude on the violations that it found, its orders are an unreasoned overreach.

Second, ordering the Central Bank to withhold Rivers state’s share of the Federation Account is at best a rogue order that punishes the people for a dispute between politicians. It violates the maxim that “equity regards the beneficiary (in this case the people of Rivers State) as the true owner.” Their right to their share of the Federation Account is antecedent to, independent of, and unconnected with the dispute in this case.

Third, being aware of the ongoing litigation on the legal consequences of the defection of the Amaewhule faction of the State House of Assembly, the Supreme Court short-circuited a contingent appellate process and issued dispositions on a dispute that was neither before it nor necessary for the determination of the issues it was called upon to decide. In doing so, the court chose with a touch of injudicious shamelessness to accept the invitation to take sides in the underlying political dispute in Rivers State.

Fourth, the Supreme Court announced revolutionary jurisprudence on the judicial fly, claiming that, in cases where there is a disputed defection, “[o]nly the [legislature] can declare a seat vacant for defection and not the Governor of a State. Not even the Courts can do so.” It takes heedless audacity for an apex court to castrate the judiciary. That is exactly what the court did with this line in italics. When the Supreme Court laid down the contrary principle in 2015, it was by a panel of seven Justices. This Supreme Court purports to overrule that principle without even citing, acknowledging, or considering its earlier decisions on the same point. Moreover, a five-person panel of the Supreme Court cannot overrule a seven-person panel.

When Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, showed up reportedly to turn the sod on proposed judicial digs with Nyesom Wike last October, there were unheeded warnings then concerning the prohibitive institutional costs of such dalliance with a notorious political litigant who has a reputation for instrumentalizing the courts. Many will look at this recent decision from the Supreme Court and say “we told you so.” For the CJN, it will be argued that she was not on the panel; to which the response will be, she chose the judges and constituted the panel.

On 1 December 1887, the Kangaroo court of Rear Admiral Walter Hunt-Grubbe ruled that the presence of King Jaja in Opobo “would be fatal” to British commercial interests and authorized his eventual exile to West Indies. The judgment was widely seen as a transactional travesty and its effect, it was said, was “to haunt the British colonial administration in West Africa for a long time.” It may similarly be said of what the courts of post-colonial Nigeria did in the 137^th year of that iniquity that they sought in another transactional travesty to exile another figure from Opobo from his position because his presence would be fatal to the interests of Nigeria’s most prolific political litigant. 

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached on [email protected]

From the Facebook Page of Daniel Bott

An uncanny coincidence that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension came just about the time the world is celebrating International Women’s Day. And the theme, “For all women and girls: Rights. Equality. Empowerment,” has Natasha written all over it in red, bold ink.

That the cards are stacked against women in politics is common knowledge. The 10th (current) senate with 109 members has only 4 women, a miserly 3.7%. The 9th senate faired even better, with 8 women. Within one election cycle, the number of women senators reduced by half. The space is definitely shrinking. You will not see how badly we are doing until you put our numbers side by side with the numbers in other African countries. Rwanda has over 60% women representation in parliament; South Africa has 46%; Senegal has 40%, thereabout. In fact, globally, Nigeria has the 6th lowest female representation in parliament.

Why is the situation like this in Nigeria? There are financial reasons, and there are reasons related to society’s perception of women in politics. In fact, at the family level, men don’t want their wives playing anywhere near the shark-infested waters of politics. There are other reasons, many of which are steeped in intolerant, ignorant partriachy – sometimes in the garb of culture, other times in the garb of religion.

For the sheer number of ego-thumping men in our parliament, the place smells like a he-goat pen: the musk of testosterone there hangs like an oversized jacket.

I am worried about the dwindling numbers of women in parliament. A 50% reduction in one election cycle is a lot. How low can we go? The barriers to entry into mainstream politics are increasing. Even the voices of the few are muffled, disrespected, or dismissed as the “ranting of stubborn women.”

In my opinion, this tiff between Senator Natasha and the senate is not about Natasha. I am the first to admit that she broke the senate rules and she might have achieved more if she had presented her case more calmly. But the ethics committee had a job to do – to sack her from the senate, regardless of what the courts or the constitution says. I heard clearly the senate president’s comment the first day when he said, “Prepare her for suspension.”

Truth is Senator Natasha has become a rallying point for the voice of the oppressed. Whether she broke the senate rules or not is beside the point. The senate also did wrong by sacking her without fair hearing, and in flagrant disregard to the court order they received.

I have been engaged in some back and forth on this matter in a few WhatsApp groups and I am shocked to discover the level of gender illiteracy amongst otherwise educated, decent men. One said “how can a woman say she was harassed when she was enjoying the attention?” Another said she has many children from many husbands so she has no right to complain of harassment. But the most ignorant comment came from someone I used to have high regard for. He said, “after all she wasn’t touched in any sensitive part, so what is she complaining about?” Truly, many are mad but few are roaming.

I was shocked to realize that we have sexist, misogynists, ultra-patriarchal demigods, and closet rapists amongst us. You spot them very easily: they are the ones who are quick to ask a woman to provide concrete evidence of the assault. They bring the argument, “But men are also harassed now!” And they accuse the victim of intolerance. Mostly, you spot them by their ill-timed humour when issues of gender are discussed. They think it’s a joke.

I have also been shocked by the tepid response of women to the debates. Most are disinterested – you would think that they have immunity against harassment. Many others are too shy to even put mouth in the discussions. Others have been so badly abused psychologically that they are more patriarchal than those testosterone-filled men in the gentleman’s club we call a parliament. They are the ones who say they deserve to be beaten by their boyfriends and husbands because they did wrong.

Early in my career, the organization I worked for prioritised gender training and it had a strict gender policy in place. Those trainings, even though I didn’t think much of them at the time, have broadened my understanding of sexual harassment, gender mainstreaming, and other associated themes.

A forty-something, or fifty something-year-old man who still thinks that harassment only happens when a woman’s “sensitive parts” are touched should be thrown away in that dumb site near his house so that scavengers can come and carry him and take him to the landfill site where he will be more useful.

Senator Natasha has given the 2025 IWD theme new meaning in my eyes: Stand up to institutional bullying. It will cost you your rights, privileges and freedoms. But it is very liberating for those who walk in your shoes daily, and understand the sacrifice you have made.

Happy International Women’s Day in advance to all strong women and girls who remain unbowed, and unapologetic in the face of tyranny, violence and inequity.