Procedural Implications of Court Striking Out Akpabio’s Motions

Legislative Privilege and Judicial Review

This episode raises core issues of legislative privilege and separation of powers. Under Nigerian law, legislators enjoy certain immunities (e.g. freedom of speech and proceedings within the legislature) by virtue of the 1999 Constitution and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act. For example, Section 1 of the Privileges Act (2017) immunizes members from being sued for words spoken in legislative sessionsawjai.org. But these protections have limits. Importantly, Section 4(8) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly forbids the legislature from ousting the courts’ jurisdiction: “the National Assembly shall not enact any law that removes or purports to remove the jurisdiction of a court of law”nilds.gov.ng. In other words, while lawmakers can discipline members internally, they cannot enact rules that completely shield such actions from judicial scrutiny.

Here, the Federal High Court (and now by implication the Court of Appeal) carefully balanced those considerations. Justice Egwuatu, in granting the injunction, emphasized that even the Senate must obey constitutional and statutory constraints. He noted the Senate’s rules and the Privileges Act, but also insisted the Senate “afford” Senator Akpoti the due process owed by the Constitution and its own Standing Orderslawyard.org. In fact, Egwuatu’s order specifically cited the 1999 Constitution, the Senate Standing Orders (2023), and the Legislative Houses Act as governing the caseallafrica.comlawyard.org. Those references underscore that legislative privilege is not a blank check: privileges apply only in the performance of legislative functionsnilds.gov.ng, and cannot override fundamental rights of representation. Indeed, multiple Nigerian courts have intervened to stop what they deemed “illegal” suspensions of elected legislators when procedural rules were breached.

Precedent Cases on Legislative Discipline

Legal experts note a string of cases where courts have struck down legislative suspensions as unconstitutional. For example, in Dino Melaye & Ors v. Speaker, H.R. of Reps (2010, FHC) the court declared a punitive suspension illegal and ordered reinstatementthisdaylive.com. Likewise, in Speaker, Bauchi State House v. Danna (2017, CoA) the Court of Appeal quashed a Bauchi State Assembly suspension because it violated the member’s constituents’ right to representationthisdaylive.com. In Jibrin v. Dogara (2018, FHC) and Omo‐Agege v. Dogara (2020, FHC), Federal High Courts similarly nullified National Assembly suspensions for failure to follow due process. In each case, courts emphasized that legislative privileges cannot override the Constitution or deprive constituents of their elected voicethisdaylive.comthisdaylive.com. (Indeed, human rights lawyer Femi Falana has summarized this jurisprudence, noting that courts “have stopped illegal suspension of legislators in Nigeria” over the past decadethisdaylive.comthisdaylive.com.)

By contrast, supporters of legislative immunity argue courts should mind their own business. Some National Assembly members have even proposed amending the Privileges Act to forbid court interference in “legislative duties,” invoking the separation of powers (e.g. arguing that Section 4 forbids such judicial encroachment)placng.org. But under current law, the judiciary clearly retains authority to interpret the Constitution. In this case, the strike‐out of Akpabio’s appeal means judicial oversight stands: the trial court’s injunction remains effective. The Senate, if it wants to discipline Senator Akpoti, must now fully litigate the matter in court and comply with the Constitution and its own rules.

Separation of Powers and Final Assessment

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal’s ruling reinforces that Nigerian separation of powers is not absolute isolation of branches. The Constitution’s supremacy clause (Section 1) binds all government action, legislative or otherwiseconstituteproject.org. As a PLAC governance guide notes, while legislators are immune “so that they can perform their duties unhindered,” this immunity derives from statute and the Constitution — and is expressly limited by the clause that no law may “purport to remove” judicial reviewnilds.gov.ngnilds.gov.ng. In practice, the courts have insisted on that limit. The present ruling – striking out the appeal motions and leaving the High Court’s injunction in place – underscores that even the Senate’s leader cannot evade ordinary legal process. Procedurally, it means the appeal is finished and the trial can proceed. Substantively, it affirms the pattern of Nigerian case law: legislative privilege does not bar courts from checking that the legislature acts within constitutional boundsallafrica.comthisdaylive.com.

Sources: Contemporary Nigerian news reports and legal analyses of the Akpabio–Akpoti casesaharareporters.comthejournalnigeria.com; Nigerian appellate rules and Supreme Court precedent on withdrawing appealsaolulaw17.medium.com; Federal statutes and constitutional text on legislative privilegeslawyard.orgnilds.gov.ng; and comparable case law on legislative suspensionsthisdaylive.comthisdaylive.com.