The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has refuted claims that the decision to suspend Senator Abdul Ningi, representing Bauchi Central, was solely his, stating that it was a collective decision of the Senate.
Akpabio made this assertion in a letter issued by his counsel, Umeh Kalu, in response to a letter from Femi Falana, the legal representative of Senator Ningi.
The controversy began when Senator Ningi alleged in March that the 2024 budget was padded by N3 trillion and that the country was operating two budgets concurrently, sparking a heated debate in the Senate.
Following deliberations at the “committee of the whole,” Senator Ningi was suspended for three months for allegedly failing to provide evidence to support his claims.
In a letter dated March 27, addressed to Akpabio through his counsel, Senator Ningi gave the Senate President a seven-day ultimatum to lift his suspension from the upper legislative chamber, describing it as “illegal.”
He threatened to approach the Federal High Court for reinstatement if the suspension was not lifted within the stipulated time frame.
In response, Akpabio’s lawyer stated, “We have carefully read through your analysis of the facts and circumstances leading to your client’s suspension from the senate.
“We are unable to find reason in your verdict of our client’s sole culpability in the said suspension. We therefore plead non est factum for our client. In addition to the above and contrary to the contents of your letter under reference, our client was at no time your client’s accuser, prosecutor and judge.
“Our client’s role at the session of the senate that led to your client’s suspension was and remains the statutory role of a legislative house presiding officer, which role equally includes pronouncing the majority decision of the legislative house at the end of debate and voting.
“Permit us to mention your attempt at drawing our client’s attention to legal authorities and pronouncements of our courts of record on the unconstitutionality of suspending members of legislative houses, which attempt we dare say was unhelpful, due to your failure or refusal to make available the relevant particulars of the said court decisions in your letter.
“You may wish to provide these legal authorities which you have alluded to, bearing in mind that every decision of a court emanates from its peculiar facts, circumstances and extant laws. In as much as it may not be necessary to canvass herein all the remedies available to our client, in response to your threats of court action and petition to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC)…
“It is important we mention that legislative proceedings are guided by rules. We urge you to give due consideration to the legal issues raised in this letter and be guided accordingly in your further and future action in respect of this matter.”
