₦airaland Forum

swimmer:
Not true.

They said the Senate over reached their powers and their attempt to use those powers contradicted the Constitution.

Meaning their bye laws were invalid. Why then is akpabio appealing the judgement?

How can you or any court invalidate the rules and regulations of the Senate or house of assembly?

Go and read that judgement again to refresh your mind.

SenatorCharles1:
The Court do not advice they declare.

The letter already admits there was a declarative judgment

The court could have dismissed or struck out the matter if it didn't want to entertain it. That the court entered judgement means, the matter was concluded.

Sen. Natasha's lawyer should file a contempt proceedings against the leadership of the Senate.

I enjoy your response. However, I read the CTC and the judge really goofed by not making any declaration. The woman judge merely beg d senate to try and recall the senator and by so doing, d judgement didn't carry weight and the senate can do as dey wish.

I blame d useless judge and d now useless nigeria judicary

Wallade:
Do you still want to be ignorant? Judges can make statements in court that are advisory not judgement.

As long as that statement however put forms part of the ruling of the court, its the judgement of the court. A judge is more informed and learned enough not to include frivolous remarks as part of her ruling.

yemre:
I hope you know that there is a difference between a declaration and an order! For your information, the Judiciary and Legislature are two of the three parallel arms of the government. And as such, the court lacks the power to give an order to the legislative arm of the government.

The lawyers in the house should correct me if I'm wrong.

You don't need a lawyer to tell you that.
Excuse me sir, you are wrong.

Why would SP Akpabio be appealing a ruling since they claimed it was a mere advice? He should simply disregard the so called advice and wait to face the consequences.

His preliminary objection succeeded in part to the extent that Sen. Natasha was challenging her fundamental right either yet to be infringed or otherwise makes no difference and the court protected her right and that of her constituents as expected.

The court lacks the jurisdiction to question the Senate rule or legislative business for which the court absolutely did not interfere with but as touching fundamental rights of a citizen, the constitution takes preeminence over any Senate rule and her lordship stated that in clear terms.

It's a very simple judgement of the court that shouldn't pose any difficulty in interpreting.

Suspending a senator for six months is over reaching and a violation of her fundamental right and that of her constituents period.

SenatorCharles1:
You don't need a lawyer to tell you that.
Excuse me sir, you are wrong.

Then correct me with facts and that part of the constitution that places the judiciary above the legislature. Pls dont bother responding again if you have no facts to back it up or if your argument is based on sentiment or emotions. I am here to learn, not for banters pls.

Thank you.

yemre:
Then correct me with facts and that part of the constitution that places the judiciary above the legislature. Pls dont bother responding again if you have no facts to back it up or if your argument is based on sentiment or emotions. I am here to learn, not for banters pls.

Thank you.

I wrote this as a reply to you.

Yes, the court lacks the jurisdiction to question the Senate rule or legislative business for which the court absolutely did not interfere but as touching fundamental rights of a citizen, the constitution takes preeminence over any Senate rule and her lordship wasted no time in stating the obvious in clear terms.

It's a very simple judgement that shouldn't pose any difficulty interpreting.

Suspending a senator for six months is over reaching and a violation of her fundamental right and that of her constituents. Senate rule or no Senate rule, the suspension is null and void and a violation of section 63 of the constitution period!!!

emmanbol:
I enjoy your response. However, I read the CTC and the judge really goofed by not making any declaration. The woman judge merely beg d senate to try and recall the senator and by so doing, d judgement didn't carry weight and the senate can do as dey wish.

I blame d useless judge and d now useless nigeria judicary

You have no need to blame the judge simply because these are two parallel arms of the same government. And by the constitution, the judiciary cannot issue orders to the legislature.

The mistake here, which i think the plantiff made, was not exhausting the internal dispute resolution mechanism before running to the courts. The judge could only make suggestions (i lack the right word here) to reconsider the reinstatement of the suspended senator in the interest of peace and fairness (not justice), especially as the representation of the constitutiency is already caught up in the whole drama.

One more thing sir,

emmanbol:
I blame d useless judge and d now useless nigeria judicary

This statement lacks civility and is very unnecessary. Only if you care to adjust tho.

SenatorCharles1:
As long as that statement however put forms part of the ruling of the court, its the judgement of the court. A judge is more informed and learned enough not to include frivolous remarks as part of her ruling.

Okay, no problem.

The judgement has now been appealed. Let's wait till the outcome.

SenatorCharles1:
I wrote this as a reply to you.

Yes, the court lacks the jurisdiction to question the Senate rule or legislative business for which the court absolutely did not interfere but as touching fundamental rights of a citizen, the constitution takes preeminence over any Senate rule and her lordship wasted no time in stating the obvious in clear terms.

It's a very simple judgement that shouldn't pose any difficulty interpreting.

Suspending a senator for six months is over reaching and a violation of her fundamental right and that of her constituents. Senate rule or no Senate rule, the suspension is null and void and a violation of section 63 of the constitution period!!!

Now I see where you are coming from. Kindly note that declaring the six-month suspension over-reaching does not necessarily mean it is null and void (unless it is expressly declared as null and void!). I think there is an issue with the respective definition of 'over-reaching here'. However, I know one thing for sure, they will sort it out, one way or the other.

The only issue I see here is that a seemingly minor internal issue, when not handled properly (or with some maturity), can spiral out of control, snowballing into a very big problem.

Thanks all the same.

Wallade:
Okay, no problem.

The judgement has now been appealed. Let's wait till the outcome.

The COA and the SC will align with the ruling of the FHC.

I'm willing to place a million Naira on this.

SenatorCharles1:
When did the FHC become an advisory body? This letter is mischievous. The court declared the suspension excessive and a violation of her right. What othe language do they want the court to speak?

Modified
Yes, the court lacks the jurisdiction to question the Senate rule or legislative business for which the court absolutely did not interfere but as touching fundamental rights of a citizen, the constitution takes preeminence over any Senate rule and her lordship wasted no time in stating the obvious in clear terms.

It's a very simple judgement that shouldn't pose any difficulty interpreting.

Suspending a senator for six months is over reaching and a violation of her fundamental right and that of her constituents. Senate rule or no Senate rule, the suspension is null and void and a violation of section 63 of the constitution period!!!

Lol. You quickly used AI , after misyarning, to verify your own ignorance and then modified appropriately not so?

You still don't escape appearing ignorant because the Senate has it's own disciplinary rules no court or individual can interfere with.

Lie-Tasha is a glorified olodo always running to the court because she understands how 'buyable' and compromised our judiciary is.

All your talk of "violation of her rights" just expose you as lawless as Lie-Tasha is. No Court can hijack the disciplinary rulings of the legislative arm.

Same as our legislative and executive arm, on paper, cannot tell the judiciary what to do over matters solely under it's jurisdiction. Separation of power. Simple concept you don't seem to understand.

WizardOfNG:
Lol. You quickly used AI , after misyarning, to verify your own ignorance and then modified appropriately not so?

You still don't escape appearing ignorant because the Senate has it's own disciplinary rules no court or individual can interfere with.

Lie-Tasha is a glorified olodo always running to the court because she understands how 'buyable' and compromised our judiciary is.

All your talk of "violation of her rights" just expose you as lawless as Lie-Tasha is. No Court can hijack the disciplinary rulings of the legislative arm.

Same as our legislative and executive arm, on paper, cannot tell the judiciary what to do over matters solely under it's jurisdiction. Separation of power. Simple concept you don't seem to understand.

This is a pure reflection of Nigeria's failing educational system.
I challenge you to place my reply on ai verification platform and let it prove your baseless claim. You can display your findings here

Wallade:
How can you or any court invalidate the rules and regulations of the Senate or house of assembly?

Go and read that judgement again to refresh your mind.

I tire for these people bro. The arms of Governance, different to tiers of Governance, are the executive, legislative and judicial arm with clearly defined parameters related to separation of power between them.

How can a Court offer anything other than a non-enforceable opinion, which is the case with Lie-Tasha's situation, if Senate rules and regulations allow legislators to discipline erring Senators according to their defined sanctions for what Lie-Tasha has done?

The Court should not even have offered an opinion, to begin with, because they are overstepping their boundary.

The rules are crystal clear. See below, with focus on "examples of disciplinary actions", to note Lie-Tasha's suspension is in order and the right of the Senate disciplinary Committee to impose as sanction for her misbehaviour.

It is obvious the judicial arm of Nigeria is a total, unprofessional and compromised joke. Pathetic and a disgrace.

Last last, everything will come to an end. We are all obligated to thread softly.

SenatorCharles1:
This is a pure reflection of Nigeria's failing educational system.
I challenge you to place my reply on ai verification platform and let it prove your baseless claim. You can display your findings here

The bolded is you personified. Crystal clear you did not have the requisite education and knowledge to understand that the legislative arm enjoys separation of power privileges that means it has the right to discipline erring legislators within the limits of clearly stipulated punishment.

Dont try and hide behind semantics to hold on to my humorous mocking of your use of AI.

Bottom line is that you rushed to speak ignorantly. Perhaps someone had quoted you already before you could revise your ignorant utterance.

Likely leading to you double-checking the official position of affairs to then "modify" you own ignorance with your grudging admission that the judiciary has no power over sanctions the legislative arm imposes on it's members.

Furthermore, to show you exemplify the bolded in your post, you kept arguing about "violation of rights" when you have previously admitted the Senate has the right to do what it did.

Think before you speak. Most importantly, back down when you get it wrong rather than double down in obdurate defence of your discredited talk. You end up looking worse.

WizardOfNG:
I tire for these people bro. The arms of Governance, different to tiers of Governance, are the executive, legislative and judicial arm with clearly defined parameters related to separation of power between all arms of Governance.

How can a Court offer anything other than a non-enforceable opinion, which is the case with Lie-Tasha's situation, if Senate rules and regulations allow legislators to discipline erring Senators according to their defined sanctions for what Lie-Tasha has done?

The Court should not even have offered an opinion, to begin with, because they are overstepping their mark.

The rules are crystal clear. See below, with focus on "examples of disciplinary actions", to note Lie-Tasha's suspension is in order and the right of the Senate disciplinary Committee to impose as sanction for her misbehaviour.

It is obvious the judicial arm of Nigeria is a total, unprofessional and compromised joke. Pathetic and a disgrace.

The question should rather be, have there been other cases of senators being suspended in the past? what were the actions taken by these senators? Did they challenge their suspensions in Court?
Did the Court rule in favour or against?

One of such suspension was the one against Senator Ovie Omo-Agege in 2018.
He challenged his suspension in court and won

Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the FHC ruled that the Senate violated its own rules, which only allow a maximum suspension of 14 legislative days.

So the senate rule allow for 14 legislative days for suspension of a senator and that of Sen. Natasha should not be interpreted differently.

Again, it therefore mean that the Judiciary has power to pass judgement against the Legislative arm

SenatorCharles1:
The question should rather be, have there been other cases of senators being suspended in the past? what were the actions taken by these senators? Did they challenge their suspensions in Court?
Did the Court rule in favour or against?

One of such suspension was the one against Senator Ovie Omo-Agege in 2018.
He challenged his suspension in court and won

Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the FHC ruled that the Senate violated its own rules, which only allow a maximum suspension of 14 legislative days.

So the senate rule allow for 14 legislative days for suspension of a senator and that of Sen. Natasha should not be interpreted differently.

Again, it therefore mean that the Judiciary has power to pass judgement against the Legislative arm

Stop clutching at straws because, by your doing, you are drowning in the redundancy of your initial ignorant and emotional argument you keep obdurately defending.

If the Senate has the power to suspend and even expel an erring legislator then what is the garbage in bold in your post about?

See last paragraph in the image below. Hopefully you will defer to fact and shut up.

SenatorCharles1:
The COA and the SC will align with the ruling of the FHC.

I'm willing to place a million Naira on this.

You are not a judge or court so your opinion has no effect.

Even if they align with the judgement, there is no court order that compels the Senate to lift the suspension. The judgement even indicated that the power to lift the suspension is solely vested in the Senate.

WizardOfNG:
Stop clutching at straws because, of your doing, you are drowning in the redundancy of your initial ignorant and emotional argument you keep obdurately defending.

If the Senate has the power to suspend and even expel an erring legislator then what is the garbage in bold in your post about?

See last paragraph in the image below. Hopefully you will defer to fact and shut up.

You need to go back and do some research on how the court had ruled on previous suspension of 'erring legislators'
You will find that despite senate rules, the judiciary can and had always ordered the senate to comply with provisions of the constitution rather than relying on their rules howsoever put.

Courts have consistently held that:
- They cannot interfere in purely internal legislative matters (e.g., voting procedures, committee assignments, sitting position of lawmakers etc).
- But they can intervene when fundamental rights are violated or when a legislature exceeds its constitutional limits.

Go and do your research

Omo Agege Vs Senate in 2018
Ali Ndume Vs Senate in 2017
Abdul Ningi and his constituency Vs Senate in 2024

this was what happened in 2018 when Saraki Suspended Omo Agege

SenatorCharles1:
It's not by quoting newspaper headlines, journalist can write based on their opinions

Can you now quote it to where the court pronounce that she should resumed to the Senate?

destinychildolu:
If a journalist covering plenary is shot by a senator or s Nate president in the chamber's, it is separation of power too. All of una no get sense. You need to go read government SS1 textbook to understand the arms of government and their duties

This is a very flawed analogy/

The court has ruled severally in the past that it has no powers when it involves NASS disciplinary rules/

Murdering someone on the floor of the senate is not one of the rules governing the senate

Try and think before you post here

We play alot in this country, Issues that have since been settled by the court is what we are still arguing over at this period of our democracy.


The Court has powers to override the legislative arm when they over-reach their powers

The Court does not need to use any special language to declare a suspension as null and void.
See the case of Ali Ndume Vs the Senate in 2017

Lanruze:
I totally support another round of six months of suspension for Natasha.

Let the Ibira people conduct another election and bring another candidate as Senator.

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is an example of bad parentage and lack of home training now magnified on a national scale.

What does she think she is sef ?

No apology, No resumption.

What a joke. You’re so threatened by one outspoken woman that you’ve reduced yourself to spewing gutter talk about her family — as if your insults can erase the fact that she has more courage and integrity than your entire band of political stooges combined.

If suspending her on repeat is your master plan, then brace yourself — because every sham suspension only proves you’re terrified of a woman who refuses to crawl for your corrupt godfathers. The Ebira people chose her with their votes — not your rotten backdoor deals — and they’ll stand with her again and again, no matter how many times you fantasise about replacing her with your spineless errand boys.

Bad parentage? Lack of home training? The only ones who need home training are the cowards who think they can muzzle a fearless woman with childish threats. Natasha is exactly what your rotten political class fears most — a woman who can’t be bought, silenced, or paraded like a puppet.

So keep foaming at the mouth about “no apology” — she’ll never apologise for standing her ground. She’ll finish your joke of a suspension, come back sharper, and keep exposing the filth you’re so desperate to hide. Better get used to it — because your worst nightmare is just getting started.

Has she apologized and paid N5 million fine imposed by court on her. More hurdle for her to cross

Has her Case on false accusation be determined. Next time she should apologize immediately

SenatorCharles1:
When did the FHC become an advisory body? This letter is mischievous. The court declared the suspension excessive and a violation of her right. What othe language do they want the court to speak?

Modified
Yes, the court lacks the jurisdiction to question the Senate rule or legislative business for which the court absolutely did not interfere but as touching fundamental rights of a citizen, the constitution takes preeminence over any Senate rule and her lordship wasted no time in stating the obvious in clear terms.

It's a very simple judgement that shouldn't pose any difficulty interpreting.

Suspending a senator for six months is over reaching and a violation of her fundamental right and that of her constituents. Senate rule or no Senate rule, the suspension is null and void and a violation of section 63 of the constitution period!!!

the court tried in a way favor both side by asking Natasha to pay 5M and also apologize but she refuses and went ahead to appeal the part of the judgement that wasn't in her favor (5m and apology) but accepted the part she deem okay for her.
In a twist of even the Senate felt if she isn't going to apologize and appealing they also can appeal the part to continue punishing her since she had refused to apologize.i remember the Senate ask her to even apologize then because of her unruly behavior but she refuses .madam is just punishing herself and her constituents