Lawyers have spoken out against the unending cases of disregard for court orders by the executive and legislative arms of government, saying such action poses serious threat to the rule of law. TUNDE OYESINA reports
Some senior lawyers have expressed deep concerns over the unending cases of disregard for court orders by the executive and legislative arms of government.
They declared that in a constitutional democracy like Nigeria, obedience to court orders is not optional, but mandatory as it is the lifeblood of the rule of law.
According to the lawyers, the continues disregard for court orders not only undermine the judiciary’s authority, but also cast doubts on the commitment of those in position of authority to justice, due process and democratic principles.
The lawyers spoke at the weekend against the backdrop of the Senate’s refusal to allow the suspended Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, resume her duties at the red chamber following a court’s order to that effect.
Justice Binta Fatima Nyako of a Federal High Court in Abuja had on July 4 faulted Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension by the Senate and nullified it. Justice Nyako subsequently ordered the Senate to recall the suspended senator on the grounds that her suspension for six months violated the Constitution and also denied her constituents of adequate representation.
The judge made the order while delivering judgement in the suit filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan challenging her six months suspension by the Senate. Justice Nyako stated that while the National Assembly has powers to discipline any erring members, such action should not be too excessive to the extent of depriving her people of representation. Justice Nyako explained that the six months suspension was excessive because it exceeded the 180 days the House is expected to sit.
According to the court, since lawmakers have a total of 181 days to sit in every legislative cycle, the six-month suspension handed to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was equivalent to pushing her away from her responsibilities to her constituents for approximately 180 days.
Disregard for court order violates the doctrine of separation of powers
The judge equally faulted the provision in Chapter 8 of the Senate Standing Rules, as well as Section 14 of the Legislative Houses, Powers and Privileges Act, declaring both to be overreaching.
Justice Nyako added that the two pieces of legislation failed to specify the maximum period that a serving lawmaker could be suspended from office.
The court also held that the Senate’s President, Godswill Akpabio, was not wrong to have denied Senator Natasha, who was not in the official seat that was allotted to her, the opportunity to speak during plenary. The court asked her to apologise to the Senate.
The court further held that though the Senate has the power to punish any of its members who err, such sanction must not be excessive to deprive the constituents of their right to be represented.
Justice Nyako equally dismissed Akpabio’s contention that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which he said bordered on internal affairs of the Senate.
Senate’s warning
Prior to her planned resumption sequel to the court’s judgement, the Senate has warned Akpoti-Uduaghan against the move, insisting no valid court order mandates her immediate recall.
In a statement, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, cautioned Akpoti-Uduaghan against forcefully resuming her legislative duties until the expiration of her suspension.
The statement reads: “The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria wishes to reaffirm, for the third time, that there is no subsisting court order mandating the Senate to recall Senator Natasha AkpotiUduaghan before the expiration of her suspension.
“The Senate had previously issued two public statements after the court ruling and the release of the Certified True Copy of the Enrolled Order, making it clear that no positive or mandatory directive was issued against the Senate regarding her recall.
“Rather, the Honourable Court gave a non-binding advisory urging the Senate to consider amending its Standing Orders and reviewing the suspension, which it opined might be excessive.
“The court, however, explicitly held that the Senate did not breach any law or constitutional provision in imposing the disciplinary measure based on the senator’s misconduct during plenary.
“It is therefore surprising and legally untenable that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, while on appeal and having filed a motion for stay against the valid and binding orders made against her, is attempting to act upon an imaginary order of recall that does not exist”.
Akpoti-Uduaghan dares Senate
Meanwhile, following the court’s order, Akpoti-Uduaghan stormed the Senate last week Tuesday, but security operatives prevented her from gaining access to the premises.
The senator arrived at the gate accompanied by three rights activists, namely; Aisha Yesufu, Mama P and Randy, as well as a crowd of supporters, but was denied entry by security officials.
Yesufu, in a bid to intervene, confronted the officers stationed at the gate and challenged the order allegedly issued to block Natasha’s entry. “National Assembly is meant to be for everyone.
Why are you stopping us? We are not abiding doesn’t mean we are cowards,” she said. The standoff quickly escalated as some supporters began chanting “Push!” while attempting to force their way in. Natasha’s supporters were later seen marching towards the complex.
Speaking to journalists after being denied access to the Senate’s chambers, Akpoti-Uduaghan expressed deep frustration with the Senate leadership, especially given a recent court ruling in her favour. She said, ”It’s about me, a duly elected senator walking into the chambers to resume my constitutional duties.
“I had duly notified the Senate through two letters that I would be resuming functions today, July 22nd, 2025.” The senator raised two major concerns; the heavy police presence and the Senate’s alleged defiance of a court order.
“The number of armed policemen we met outside, all well-kitted with guns, charging at an unarmed female senator, was shocking. “We have people here, attractive Nigerians, who witnessed this.
The second thing is the fact that the Senate, under its leadership, has decided to become lawbreakers by denying my entrance into the chambers to resume my duties”. Akpoti-Uduaghan also addressed what she called a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the court’s ruling in the media.
She said: ”There has been some conversations in the media by their own team trying to twist a narrative that the judge did not order my reinstatement, and I’d like to clarify that.
“If you look at Section 318 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, it’s very clear that decisions of a court come in five ways: a judicial decree, a sentence, an order, a conviction, and a recommendation. “Mine tilted towards a recommendation, which some interpret as voluntary, meaning the Senate has the right to comply or not.
“But I’d like to clarify that again. If you go further to Section 287, Subsection 3 of the 1999 Constitution, it clearly specifies that decisions, any of these five decisions of any court, are binding on every authority.
“So, what that means in simple terms: whether Justice Binta Nyako or the Federal High Court made an order, a sentence, a judicial decree, or a recommendation, however they want to interpret the literal words, it is still a decision of a court, and it is still binding on the National Assembly”.
Refuting media reports that the Senate had appealed the judgement, Akpoti-Uduaghan held up a document and said, ”The second issue I’ve seen…around the media is that the Senate appealed the judgement. “I’m saying it clearly… this is the appeal last week against Justice Binta Nyako’s judgement. “It is clear that it is not the National Assembly, neither is it the Senate. It’s Senator Akpabio himself.
The National Assembly has not appealed that judgement. The Senate has not appealed the judgement. “The Committee on Ethics, which wrongly suspended me, has not appealed the judgement. “As a matter of fact, Senator Akpabio joined the Clerk of the National Assembly, the entire Senate, and the Chairman Committee on Ethics as joint respondents to the case.
“That means Akpabio has taken the National Assembly, the Senate, the Clerk, and the Committee to court as well. “That must be clarified, so there is no reason whatsoever, contrary to the publications I read yesterday, that I should not resume today because the Senate has appealed”.
The feud
The protracted feud between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan reached a climax on March 6, 2025 when the Senate wielded its authority and suspended the Kogi Central Senator who had accused the Senate President of sexual harassment and abuse of office, following a seat arrangement conflict on February 20, 2025. Akpabio however denied the sexual harassment allegations against him by the Kogi lawmaker.
The female senator also slammed a N100 billion alleged defamation suit on him, while the Akpabio-led upper legislative chamber referred her to the Senate disciplinary committee.
On March 5, the Senate committee dismissed Akpoti-Uduaghan’s sexual harassment and abuse of office petition against the senate president, declaring it “dead on arrival” based on procedural violations and legal constraints, but the female senator re-submitted the petition on March 6.
The seat row wasn’t the first issue between Akpabio and AkpotiUduaghan. In July 2024, the Senate President apologised to the female lawmaker over his nightclub comment against the female lawmaker.
Instances of disregard for court order
Ibraheem El-Zakzaky In 2016, a Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the release of the detained leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN), Sheikh El-Zakzaky, and awarded him N50 million in damages. The government refused to comply, keeping him in custody for over five years until 2021, even after being cleared by the court.
Omoyele Sowore
Despite multiple court orders for the release of #RevolutionNow Convener, Omoyele Sowore, the Department of State Services (DSS) continued to detain him and rearrested him inside the court room — a move widely condemned as judicial sacrilege.
Nnamdi Kanu
Several courts, including the ECOWAS Court of Justice, ordered the release of IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, at different times on the grounds of unlawful arrest and extraordinary rendition. These orders were either ignored or only partially obeyed.
Sambo Dasuki
Former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (Rtd), was granted bail by at least five courts, including the ECOWAS Court, but the Federal Government refused to release him for nearly four years.
CSO, lawyers speak
A rights group, Fairness and Equity, during a round-table discussion held in Abuja under the theme; “Upholding the Sanctity of the Court”, emphasised the strong legal implications of disobedience to court order.
In his address, the group’s Executive Director, Dr. Fredrick Chijioke, noted that the deliberate disregard for court orders violates the doctrine of separation of powers. He added that executive interference weakens judicial independence.
He said: “The rule of law, the core tenet of democracy is that laws and courts bind everyone equally. Litigants are denied justice even after favourable rulings. “Non-compliance with rulings from courts like ECOWAS undermines Nigeria’s treaty obligations and global practice.
When court orders are ignored, the judiciary becomes a toothless bulldog and democracy is at risk”. Speaking in the same vein, a rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome, maintained that the rule of law is the foundation of every just society.
“When the government becomes the greatest violator of the law, then we’re no longer in a democracy. The courts must be more assertive in sanctioning contempt, regardless of who is involved”, Ozekhome said. In his comments, a senior lawyer, Onesimus Ruya, submitted that the Nigerian Constitution does not give any government official the discretion to choose which court orders to obey.
“Disobedience of court order is the hallmark of dictatorship. It is a form of executive lawlessness that must be resisted by all. “When court judgements are disobeyed, the government sets a dangerous precedent. It becomes a rogue entity, encouraging citizens to also disrespect the law.
You cannot have a selective application of justice in a constitutional democracy”, Ruya said. In his submissions, a rights activist, Inibehe Effiong, argued that, “this disobedience of court order shows the deep-seated disrespect for the judiciary. “We must consider legal reforms to hold public officials personally accountable for contempt, including fines and dismissal from office.”
A senior lawyer, Timilehin Ojo, also argued that court orders must be obeyed in totality, not selectively. “The society breaks down. If a government cannot obey a simple judgement, how can it enforce laws against others? “Civil society groups and Bar associations must mobilise public opinion to defend judicial integrity.
“Courts must fearlessly enforce contempt rulings even against highranking public officials to maintain authority. “Naming and shaming disobedient officials can pressure government into compliance and promote accountability. “In the architecture of constitutional democracy, the judiciary is not a junior partner — it is a coequal arm of government. ” But without the power to enforce its own orders, it risks becoming ornamental.
Nigeria cannot continue to pay lip service to the rule of law while disregarding judicial pronouncements. “A government that disobeys the courts delegitimizes itself. For democracy to thrive, court orders must not only be respected — they must be obeyed”.
