By Hamza N. Dantani Esq
Senator Natasha has made strong claims of sexual impropriety against the Senate President, which she formally submitted yesterday, 5th March 2025, to the red chambers and which is to be investigated by the Senate’s Ethics Committee.
Senator Natasha approached the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division in FHC/ABJ/CS/384/25; between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. The Clerk of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & 3 Ors.
In a ruling delivered on the 4th of March, 2025, the Federal High Court, inter alia, granted an interim order restraining the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct from proceeding with any investigation against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan concerning the alleged misconduct arising from the events that occurred during the Senate plenary on 20th February, 2025. The order was granted pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice. The court then adjourned the matter to the 10th day of March 2025.
In total disregard for the Federal High Court’s valid order, the same Senate Committee suspended Senator Natasha for six months today, March 6th, 2025.
With tremendous respect, I submit that this is contrary to the rule of law, which stipulates that all persons and institutions are subject to the rule of law. A key component of the rule of law is obedience to court orders. Court orders are not made for mere fun. They have to be obeyed. The court of appeal, in the case of Adesoye v. Olagunju (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 552) 65, stated thus:
“For the sake of emphasis, it must be reiterated that a court of law is not a toothless bulldog. It must bark and bite as circumstances may demand. Court’s orders, whatever their nature, must certainly be obeyed.”
Not done, the three wise men held in Balonwu v. Obi (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 488 that:
“An order of court, whether valid or not, must be obeyed until it is set aside. An order of court must be obeyed as long as it subsists by all, no matter how lowly or highly placed in society. An act of disobedience towards an order of a court can render any further act by those who have acted disobediently to sanctions from another court because no court would want its orders flouted. This is what the rule of law is all about.”
The Supreme Court in the case of Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd. v. Assan (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 412) 129 pronounced the following words with all authority:
“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged or set aside on appeal. This extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or void.”
Those are not my words but the words of the highest court in the land. In the matter at hand, since we are in a democratic society, the proper course the Senate Committee would have followed was to suspend today’s proceedings in obedience to the court’s order. It can then apply to have the order set aside, as it is its right to do so.
The action taken by the Senate Committee is, in my opinion, an affront to the judicial arm of government. It ridicules the judiciary as a toothless bulldog and derides the court’s orders as paper tigers.
An institution like the Senate should exemplify how citizens and institutions are subject to law; it should not be seen as encouraging disobedience to court orders. If an institution constitutionally mandated to make laws cannot respect court orders, how can it inspire citizens to obey or even respect the rule of law?
Therefore, in my opinion, the Senate Committee’s decision to suspend Senator Natasha instead of obeying the order of a court of competent jurisdiction renders the suspension process invalid.
Hamza N. Dantani Esq
Human Rights Activist
06 March 2025.
