Shakespeare’s classic tragic drama, Romeo and Juliet, has two lines that are of specific relevance to what is happening between the Senate and the suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan right now. This is especially so on the heels of the September 4, 2025, letter by the Acting Clerk to the National Assembly, Yahaya Danzaria, in which he declared that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan cannot resume in the Senate even after the expiration of her six-month suspension.
Shakespeare in Act 5, Scene 3 of the play, relayed the conversation between the distraught Romeo and Paris, who had accused Romeo of coming to Juliet’s tomb to do some “villainous shame” to the dead body. He then put the question to Romeo: “Can violence be pursued further than death? The troubled Romeo, who confirmed his readiness to die, did not argue with his accuser. He dealt him a deadly strike and added… “tempt not a desperate man.”
In the unfolding scenario between the Senate and the Kogi Central Senator, Akpoti-Uduaghan would be in the position of Paris, who asked the question: “Can vengeance be pursued further than death?” And in its reply, the Senate would take the position of Romeo (as provided by Danzaria): “Don’t tempt a desperate man!”
The Acting Clerk to the National Assembly had set up the back and forth between Natasha and the Senate when he released the story, indicating that the Kogi Central Senator would not be allowed to resume the plenary even after the expiration of the six-month suspension slammed on her in March 2025. Reports had indicated that Akpoti-Uduaghan had earlier written to the Clerk, to notify the National Assembly of her readiness to resume her functions as a Senator on September 4, a date that should mark the expiration of her suspension.
In his response, Danzaria said: “I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, notifying this office of your intention to resume sitting and other legislative duties in the Senate on the 4th of September 2025, which you claim is the date of expiration of the six-month suspension imposed on you by the Senate.
“I am further directed to inform you that your suspension was with effect from Thursday, 6th March, 2025, and draw your attention to the fact that the subject matter of your suspension is presently before the Court of Appeal.
“The matter, therefore remains sub judice, and until the judicial process is concluded and the Senate formally reviews the suspension in the light of the Court’s pronouncement, no administrative action can be taken by this office to facilitate your resumption.
“You will be duly notified of the Senate’s decision on the matter as soon as it is resolved.”
The above submission perfectly fits Shakespeare’s description of vengeance pursued further than death. Not a few Nigerians have told the National Assembly this fact. Lagos lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, said so and gave instances of similar suspensions that were overturned by the courts in recent times. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has also pointed out the anomaly, while the constituents of the embattled Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan have also written a plea to President Bola Tinubu to stop the Senate’s attempt to keep denying them a voice in the red chamber.
So far, the Senate has remained silent, an indication that it was resting on the submissions by Danzaria. No doubt, doing that will clearly paint the chamber in the words of the ready-to-die Romeo-a desperate man. But did Akpoti-Uduaghan tempt a desperate man contrary to the words of Romeo? Only a deep look into the details of the altercations between her and the Senate would reveal the truth in that. Nevertheless, the submissions by Danzaria are already painting the Senate as a desperate man.
Close watchers of the National Assembly would tell you that motions do have the force of law. Indeed, motions have the force of law when passed by a two-thirds majority of the chamber. That was why Dr. Goodluck Jonathan assumed the leadership of this country on February 9, 2010, after the passage of the Doctrine of Necessity by the Senate and its adoption by the House of Representatives following the prolonged absence of the late President Umaru Yar’Adua on account of illness. The motion became a law once it was transmitted by the then Clerk to the National Assembly, Prince Oluyemi Ogunyomi, and today, Jonathan’s ascension to the nation’s number one seat is part of our history.
So, if motions have the force of law, the Senate’s motion on March 6, 2025, suspending Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months instantly became a law once the ‘Ayes’ had it. That being the case, the law also carries a sunset clause with with the six months expiration. It thus means that the law naturally expires on the dot of six months, and the membership of the Senate by Akpoti-Uduaghan is automatically validated at the expiration of the six months. Where then would Danzaria and the Senate derive the power to extend the suspension from? That is the question the acting Clerk must answer. The law upon which the senator was suspended says she should be away for six months. Where would you derive a contrary law to vary that time frame? As much as the Danzaria submission above is concerned, the Senate was trying to help itself by playing the proverbial ostrich. As much as we may need to advise Akpoti-Uduaghan not to tempt a desperate man, we also must tell the Senate to refrain from desperation on this matter. If a lawmaker is suspended for six months, the suspension would only remain in force within the limit of time limit given. The fact that a case or cases are pending in court cannot come in. The key issue in contention is the motion by the Senate that suspended the senator for six months. He or she stands recalled without the need for any new motion of recall at the expiration of the time. If the 10th Senate is confused on this matter, it should check the books on the previous related cases. Senator Arthur Nzeribe was banished from the 4th Senate; no one needed a fresh motion to recall him when the 5th Senate resumed. Except the motion so expressly carries clauses to that effect, no one can add a condition to an already passed motion of the Senate. We already have records of the processes leading to the suspension and resumption of Senators, including Senator Femi Okurounmu (1999); Senator Joseph Waku (2000); Senator Arthur Nzeribe (2002); Senator Ali Ndume (2017), Ovie Omo-Agege (2018); Senator Abdul Ningi (2024), and now, Akpoti-Uduaghan in 2025. None of the senators who have faced suspension has been subjected to the extraordinary conditions being invented by Danzaria.
As for the penchant to adopt the Pontius Pilate-like posture concerning cases pending before the court, this too is a deceptive way of hiding behind one finger. The rule says that the Senate may not consider a case that is pending before the court if, in the opinion of the presiding officer, the intervention could jeopardise the essence of the suit. In this case, a senator takes up a matter in court, the res of the case expired via natural consequence, but the Senate itself had filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal. How on earth will the determination of the suit change the fact that the Senator was only suspended for six months? I just hope that Danzaria and those who directed him to issue the statement are not seeking to push Akpoti-Uduaghan into conflict with the law of representation in Nigeria, which indicates that a lawmaker must attend sittings for 181 days in a year. She has already been suspended for 180 days, and if that is extended, she could run afoul of the constitutional provision, and that could prompt any aggrieved member of her constituency to take her up on inadequate representation. What we do not know is whether she would be deemed by the constitution to be away on “just cause” in such a circumstance.
Earlier this year, a lawmaker in the Zamfara State House of Assembly, Hon. Aliyu Ango-Kagar, was removed from the assembly when the chamber declared his seat vacant for alleged absenteeism. Ango-Kagara, who represented Talata-Mafara South, was allegedly absent for 159 days and was said to have attended plenary on 21 of the 181 sittings of the house in contravention of 101 and 102 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Ango-Kagara’s fate is a confirmation that the constitution greatly values the representative role of the lawmaker. An erring lawmaker can either have his seat declared vacant or recalled.
To avoid running into further controversy, the Senate may wish to listen to opinions from legal minds, including Femi Falana, SAN, and the President of the NBA, Afam Osigwe, SAN. Falana had submitted that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s continued suspension was an abuse of power, adding that “suspending legislators at the whims and caprices of leaders of the federal and state legislative houses must not be allowed to continue in Nigeria.” He also stated that the courts have reinstated all lawmakers previously suspended by either the national or state legislatures, including the 2010 suspension of Dino Melaye and 10 others by the House of Representatives.
Other cases listed by Falana include the 2012 case of Honourable Rifkatu Danna of the Bauchi State House of Assembly. He said that the Bauchi State High Court declared her suspension illegal and ordered the assembly to reinstate and pay her withheld salaries and allowances. He also stated that the Court of Appeal in 2017 dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of the Bauchi State High Court in respect of the suspension of Honourable Danna. He equally stated that in 2018, Honourable Abdulmumin Jibrin, who was suspended for 180 days by the House of Representatives, for accusing then Speaker Yakubu Dogara-led House of padding the 2016 national budget, won his case when the Federal High Court nullified the suspension. Again, Falana stated that based on the case of the Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly v Honourable Rifkatu Danna (2017) 49 WRN 82, the 2017 suspension of Senator Ali Ndume by the Bukola Saraki-led Senate was annulled by the Federal High Court. He also mentioned the 2020 ruling of the Federal High Court, which nullified the suspension of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege as illegal and unconstitutional. Also in 2020, Hon Sani Iyaku of the Jigawa State House of Assembly was suspended over alleged criticism of the state governor, Alhaji Muhammad Abubakar Badaru, who was on a visit to Hadejia town for a wedding ceremony. The Jigawa State High Court, according to Falana, reinstated the lawmaker as the court ruled that the suspension did not comply with Order 15 Rule 74 (2)(c) and (3) a, b of the State House of Assembly Standing Orders 2017.
He also reminded the Senate of the most recent tiff between it and Senator Ningi, adding that following the senator’s suspension over allegations of budget padding against the Senate, the lawmaker approached his chamber. “We wrote to the leadership of the Senate to review the suspension, given the illegality of the action. As we were preparing to challenge the suspension in the Federal High Court, the Senate recalled Senator Ningi and paid his withheld salaries and allowances,” he said.
The Senate may also wish to take a cue from the words of the NBA President, Afam Osigwe, who stated last week: “If the suspension has ended, she (Akpoti-Uduaghan) can return, regardless of whether the Senate was right or wrong in suspending her. “The Senate cannot use the pending appeal to deprive her of her seat once the actual suspension has ended.”
If the Senate would heed those calls, it could wean itself of the toga of desperation as we saw earlier in the words of the dying Romeo and that important question by Paris: “Can vengeance be pursued further than death?”
(Published in the Sunday Tribune, September 21, 2025)
