By tomorrow and a week thereafter, the duo of Siminilayi Fubara and Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan respectively, would have served out their six-month suspension. In this analysis, BIYI ADEGOROYE revisits the issues and hazards the next line of action
The month of September is crucial in the annals of Nigeria’s contemporary political history, especially under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. It will mark the expiration of the controversial six months suspension handed over to Siminalayi Fubara, the democratically elected Governor of Rivers State, and Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi Centra in the National Assembly.
Though mired by debates regarding the legality of their suspensions, the duo of Fubara and Akpoti-Uduaghan would serve out their respective suspension this month. For the latter, the six months would expire tomorrow Monday, while the former would have to tarry till September 18.
The buildup to Fubara was signposted by top level politicking and brinkmanship occasioned, first by his refusal to take orders from his predecessor and now Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. Following in toe, was the defection of 23 members of the State House of Assembly, from the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Fubara came under protracted attacks from the lawmakers, and his predecessor took its tolls on not only peace and security in the state, but governance also took to flight. The groundswell of opposition and court action propelled his budget futile budget presentation to minority lawmakers, and consequent rather harsh demolition of the State House of Assembly.
On February 28, 2025, the Supreme Court in significant rulings on the Rivers State quagmire, invalidating the October 5, 2024, for noncompliance with the Electoral Act, also ordered stoppage of funds to the state government. It also directed the resumption of sitting by the 26 lawmakers.
Needless to say, the lawlessness in the state which defied intervention of its political leaders and seemingly genuine actions of the Federal Government festered, culminating in the appointment of Vice Admiral Ibok Ete Ibas (retd.) as the sole administrator to oversee the affairs of Rivers State pending the period of the suspension.
The national uproar which greeted the action was ignored, especially as allusions were made though previous emergency rules in Borno and a few states, except Ekiti and Plateau, where the sitting governors remained. Human rights lawyer Femi Falana criticised of the emergency rule in describing it as an affront to democracy and a potential power grab.
He argued that the suspension of elected democratic institutions violated the constitution and was a deliberate plot to unconstitutionally impose individuals on the people. Falana’s main points of criticism include constitutional violation, power grab, undemocratic tactics
Observers who share Falana’s view now allude to the massive release of funds to Ibas, the conduct and outcome of the local government election, where contrary to the previous configuration, the APC, hitherto in the opposition in the state now controls 20 councils, ‘leaving’ three for the PDP, as a confirmation of the “power grab through undemocratic tactics.”
Analysts have argued that the conduct of this election only deepens the constitutional conundrum in Rivers State, where democratic structures were suspended and elections conducted by an undemocratic structure, whose neutrality is suspect. Now what next- the return of the governor and the House of Assembly highly loyal to the Wike. With what outcome? Rivers would have been captured from PDP, through undemocratic means, and in the next few days subjugating Fubara to cow-toe and defect to APC, to save his office.
Commenting on the issue recently, a former diplomat not only frowned at what he described as a charade in Rivers State, but strongly wants the FCT Minister to stop disrupting governance in the state and desist from the abuse and disparage political opponents.
The former diplomat said: “Please can the Nigerian media explain to us the people, why it inflicts Wike on us everything now and then. How much is the media being paid at public expense for him to continue to offend our sensibility? Wike is the Minister of the FCT, not governor, and his interview is not about the FCT.”
He even wondered why the same media opportunity given to Wike has not been given to other parties in the Rivers’ fiasco to respond to Wike’s diatribes. “The media should be courageous enough to stop this nonsense and uphold its dignity. If he must address the media weekly or monthly, it should be limited to his responsibilities as the FCT Minister. He is not the President or chairman of any political party. For goodness’s sake, Nigerian media, enough is enough. Spare us the pains, yes, it is ‘paining us, even if it sweets to them.’
Commenting on the issue, Chief Chekwas Okorie is the founding National Chairman of the All-Progressives Grand Alliance, (APGA) and the United Peoples Party (UPP), said: “The impression most Nigerians had about President Tinubu’s democratic credentials have been shattered with the two years that he has been the President of this country. His economic policies are not bad except the implementation, but in terms of democracy he is totally different from what we thought he would be. So, for him to be the one playing the script of Nyesom Wike is unfortunate and it should have been Wike playing the script of the President but in reverse the President is playing Wike’s script.”
For Akpoti-Uduaghan
From all indications, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan resumption of her duties at the Red Chamber is due tomorrow when her controversial six-month suspension would expire. This is without prejudice to extant verdicts and precedents to legality of her suspension.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended for six months by the Senate, effective March 6, for unparliamentary conduct, especially her refusal to move to a new seat and shouting at presiding officers. The Senate Ethics Privileges and Public Petitions Committee questioned here“disruptive behavior as the reason for the suspension, but has yet investigated her unsubstantiated allegation of sexual harassment even in the international arena against the Senate President.
Precedents in this regard, include the suspension of Hon Dino Melaye, in the House of Representatives, Senator Ali Ndume, Abdul Ningi, suspended for three months, for violating “legislative rules, allegations of misconduct, and unethical behaviour,” respecting alleged budget padding.
In the Ndume case, Justice Babatunde Quadri declared on November 10, 2017, that the March 30 suspension of Ndume was “illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional,” and directed “the first and second defendants (the Senate President and the Senate) …to pay the plaintiff his outstanding salaries and allowances forthwith.”
Similarly, 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.
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.
She said 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.
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. She said 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. She 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.
Relying on the verdict, the Senator planned to resume, but the Senate warned against the move, insisting no valid court order mandated her immediate recall. 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. Reference was also made to her sarcastic apology on the matter.
Hence, when Akpoti-Uduaghan stormed the Senate a few months ago, security operatives prevented her from gaining access to the premises. Akpoti-Uduaghan expressed deep frustration with the Senate leadership, especially given a recent court ruling in her favour.
She said: “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.”
Chief Martins Onovo, an activist and former presidential candidate described the developments “as vexatious charade,” blaming the media and weak institutions. “It is unfortunate that Nigeria has descended to this level of lawlessness and dictatorship. Various institutions have failed to play their roles.
“The media, in particular, is condoning this lawlessness. When the media was playing its role, by now it would have written editorials condemning these, but today they are silent. We must rise against this otherwise, it will consume all of us.
“The court ruled that the Senate had no powers to suspend Natasha or any lawmaker for more than 14 days, but the Senate argued the ruling didn’t call for her recall, what a crab? That amounts to intellectual dishonesty, and they waited until the six months expired. This is so sad.
“To worsen matters, the Senate did not allow independent investigation into the sexual harassment allegation. Look, in other climes this would not happen. In the U.S., the Governor of New York was removed, and even the President of Israel was tried for sexual harassment. Why is our case different?”
He lamented that it is in public domain that Fubara and Wike have reached an agreement which would not be in the interest of the Rivers people.
But it has also been argued that the Senator overacted to the seat reallocation and should have complied, since such action is a regular feature of the Senate. Worse still is the aspersion cast on the reputation of the Senate and the Senate President by attributing the seat allocation and stripping her of committee chairmanship to refusal of romantic overture.
In sum, observers condemn the two suspensions, stating they violate principles and praxis of good governance – especially the rule of law. They argue that the Senate and indeed Federal Government acted outside the provisions of laws of the land. That the case of Rivers State, in particular, was allowed to degenerate to achieve a desired objective.
