By
OLA AWONIYI
A drama on the floor of the Senate on Thursday, 20th February 2025, attracted varied commentaries on the social, print and broadcast media. The drama was both unnecessary and avoidable as it merely distracted from the business of the day in the Chamber.
Legislative activities, whether in the hallowed Chamber or in committee rooms, are guided by the Senate Rules. This may lead a first-timer at the public gallery to wonder if lawmakers do anything without reference to their Standing Rules. Every time they get the recognition of the Presiding Officer to contribute to a discussion in the chamber, Senators are guided by the Standing Rules in what to say. This is well known to the lawmakers. The Rules also stipulate sanctions for members whose actions or conducts deviate from the Rules. The Chamber is called hallowed because it is known for Order and decorum.
The drama of that Thursday started right at the commencement of the day’s business when the Senate Chief Whip, Senator Mohammed Tahir Monguno, raised a Point of Order to report Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, to the Senate on her disregard for the Senate Rules. Order 6, which Senator Monguno cited, stipulates that “the President of the Senate shall allocate a seat to each senator,” while section 6(2) states that senators may only speak from the seat allocated to them by the Presiding Officer. It also provides that the President of the Senate may change the allocation from time to time as the need arises.
Senator Monguno, relying on the rules stated above, submitted that “It is at the discretion of the Senate president, as circumstances may warrant, to change the seat of any Senator, based on circumstances that may crop up in the course of proceedings in the Senate.
“In the course of proceedings, two Senators – Ned Nwoko of the PDP and Senator Francis Ezenwa of the Labour Party, decamped to the APC, thereby necessitating their movement from the other side (Minority) to this side (Majority). In the exercise of the powers conferred on the President of the Senate, pursuant to Order 6(2), the President of the Senate decided to rearrange things, giving a directive to the Chief Whip to exercise that function. And pursuant to that directive, seats were reallocated and I want to report that Senator Natasha, having been given another seat, refused to vacate her former seat in flagrant violation of our Rules.”
Senator Monguno consequently referred the Senate to the Standing Rules, which mandate Senator Natasha to comply with the directive of the Presiding Officer to move to her new seat, failure of which she would be denied recognition to make any contribution during plenary.
After the Chief Whip landed on his Point of Order, the Senate President hit the gavel and pronounced that the Point of Order was sustained. This means that Senator Natasha could not speak on the floor of the Senate except from the new seat allocated to her.
Upon the Senate President’s ruling on the Point of Order, Senator Natasha sprang to her feet, waving the same document containing the Standing Rules and shouting, “Point of Order.” However, the Senate President reminded her that she could not speak outside her allocated seat.
Senator Natasha ignored the Presiding Officer’s ruling and continued to scream, citing Order 10, which has to do with the breach of privileges of a Senator.
Because she continued to scream, the Senate President ordered the Seargent-At-Arms to “take her out of the Chamber.” The Seargent-At-Arms moved swiftly in her direction but hesitated to act, probably expecting the Senator to calm down and comply with the Senate President’s ruling and avert her evacuation from the Chamber. However, the Senate President kept a dignified silence. He did not repeat his directive, obviously to avert aggravating the drama.
By this time, some Senators had walked over to pet Senator Natasha, but she rebuffed their intervention and continued uttering discourteous statements.
Against the backdrop of the unfortunate drama, commentators have raised some questions: Why should the Senate President reallocate Senators’ seats? Why can’t Senators speak from any seat in the Chamber? Why wasn’t Senator Natasha allowed to explain her objection to her seat being changed?
A reference was also made to an incident on 17th October 2018 when Senator Godswill Akpabio protested being denied recognition to speak from a seat other than the one allocated to him. Are the two incidents similar?
The answers to the questions above are provided by the Senate Rules and Procedure. The Standing Orders book guides the Senate’s legislative business.
Pertinent to this issue, are clauses that empower the Senate President to allocate and reallocate seats as the need arises. Seats change in the Chamber from time to time without senators protesting because they know that occasions demand it and their rules permit it.
Senators do not sit just anywhere at the plenary. This is to ensure Order and decorum in the hallowed Chamber. The practice in the Parliament all over the democratic world is that members sit with their party colleagues. Ruling party or majority party members have a section in the Chamber and those of the opposition or minority parties another section.
A movement of members across party lines through defection will automatically necessitate an adjustment of the sitting arrangement.
Therefore, as explained by the Senate Chief Whip on Thursday, the change of Senator Natasha’s seat was made necessary by the defection on Wednesday 5th February 2025 of Senator Ned Nwoko of the Delta North Senatorial District from the PDP to the APC and Senator Ezenwa Francis Onyewuchi of the Imo East Senatorial District from Labour Party to APC as well.
Therefore, Senator Natasha was not the only Senator affected by the changes in the sitting arrangement. The difference with the others was that they graciously accepted the change, obviously seeing no point in making a drama out of an innocuous, routine development in the hallowed Chamber.
Was Senator Natasha denied her right to speak in the Chamber that day? Nope. She was not recognised to speak because she was not on her seat, just like Senator Akpabio was not allowed to speak from Senator Ali Ndume’s seat in 2018, even though Akpabio moved over to another seat that day because the microphone on his allocated seat had malfunctioned.
The then Senate President, Bukola Saraki was firm in his ruling that Akpabio would only be allowed to speak from an alternative seat (with a functioning microphone), which the Clerk of the Senate already provided him, but which he had rejected. Akpabio protested, but he eventually accepted the reallocated seat and apologized to the Senate.
That shows that Akpabio did not invent the rule that prevented Senator Natasha from speaking outside the seat allocated to her. He also did not apply the Rules to embarrass or victimize her.
Granting her recognition to speak after a Point of Order was raised by the Chief Whip and sustained would have been inconsistent with the Senate Rule. All that Senator Natasha was asked to do was to move to her seat to state her case of the alleged breach of her privilege.
It is noteworthy that neither of her two Senator colleagues from Kogi State agreed with Natasha on this issue. Senator Jibrin Isah, representing Kogi East, apologized on behalf of the Kogi Senate Caucus to the Senate while Senator Sunday Karimi, representing Kogi West, asked Natasha to apologise to the Senate for her conduct.
To demonstrate that he had no personal issues with her, the Senate President eventually offered an apology to the Senate on her behalf for holding up the day’s proceeding, citing his own 2018 experience of how a firm application of the Rules can hurt some egos and be misinterpreted.
***Ola Awoniyi writes from Abuja
