Natasha’s suspension: did court order recall? By Olabisi Ayodele

Ever since Justice Binta Nyako of the FCT High Court delivered her ruling, there have been different reports from conventional media and intrepretations on Social Media.

Headlines have emerged on the ruling to reflect the sentiment of news rooms on the Senate/Natasha or Akpabio/Natasha matter. The Guardian newspaper screamed with its “Court orders Senate to recall Senator Natasha from suspension” and later “Natasha: Court affirms Senate’s power to discipline members” headlines. The Channel Television chose “Court directs Senate to recall Senator Natasha”. The Premium Times cast its headline as “Court lifts Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension but fines her N5m.”

Interestingly, the Daily Post reduced the matter to Akpabio/Natasha by phrasing its headline as “Court orders Akpabio to recall Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.” The Daily Trust’s headline reads “Court orders Natasha’s recall to senate,” the Business day NG preferred “Court orders Senate to reinstate suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan,” the BBC online chose “Justice Nyako tell Senate to recall Natasha Akpoti,” the Cable simply reported “Court urges to reconsider recalling Natasha Akpoti, says 6-month suspension excessive.”

As instructive as the headlines are, many of them are very misleading. This is because there’s a marked difference between “order” and “urge” the feature prominently in the headlines. To “order” is to command or give compelling directive whereas to “urge” is to merely advise or draw attention to something. In law, “Order” roughly equates Ratio Decidendi while “Urge” connotes Orbiter Dictum. Ratio Decidendi is a binding principle which usually forms legal precedent that serves as reference point for future cases. In contrast, orbiter dictum is a non-binding and not-enforceable remark.

Let’s now turn to the Justice Nyako’s ruling on the Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension to decide whether it is a ratio decidendi or orbiter dictum. According to Justice Nyako, the “Senate has the authority to discipline its members, such sanctions MUST not go so far as to deny constituents their right to representation.” Having duly acknowledged and upheld the Senate’s power to discipline or suspend members, Justice Nyako only advised that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s constituency should have been considered in determining the duration of suspension. But who said the Natasha’s constituency was not considered? What if the Senate had reasoned that since Natasha was to meet with her electors regularly, they must have supported her misconducts in the hallowed chamber? Even the Justice Nyako’s submission that Natasha’s 6-month suspension equates 180days could easily be faulted because Senate sits for only 3days weekly which translates to 72days of the Constitutional 181days of sitting (Section 63 of 1999 Constitution as amended).

in conclusion, compared to the Justice Nyako’s ruling on contempt of court in which she ordered payment of N5million fine, and published apology in dailies and Facebook, it is very difficult to conclude that the suspension has ended and recall enforceable. Whenever a court gives an order, it deploys mechanism for its enforcement and disobeying such order is viewed as CONTEMPT. It’s, therefore my considered opinion that the FCT High Court did not order the Senate to reinstate the suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan! What the Court did was merely to urge the Senate to reconsider shortening the period of Natasha’s suspension for the sake of her constituency. Thus, the Senate is at liberty to reconsider her stance or allow the suspension run its full course.

–Ayodele is a Professor of Sociology from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife