By Ikeddy ISIGUZO

?Every man got 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 be one of 49 Ministers or an ambassador to some obscure corner of the globe.

Unknown to Akpabio, he was the accused, and therefore 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, March 6, 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 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 through 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 a 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 Neces?Ity or Doctrine of Absolute Necessity been used to put Natasha?s rights at abeyance?

Thanks very much Senator Akpabio for your impartial judgment, on 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.

Update news