Godswill Akpabio, senate president, says the resolution to suspend Abdul Ningi, senator representing Bauchi central, was not his sole decision.
Akpabio said this in a letter issued by his counsel, Umeh Kalu, in response to a letter by Femi Falana, counsel to Ningi.
In March, Ningi sparked controversy when he alleged that the 2024 budget was padded by N3 trillion and that the country is operating two budgets concurrently.
Subsequently, the senate debated the matter at the “committee of the whole”.
The senator was thereafter suspended for three months for allegedly not providing evidence to back his allegations.
In a letter dated March 27 and addressed to Akpabio through his counsel, Ningi gave the senate president a seven-day ultimatum to lift his suspension from the upper legislative chamber.
Ningi described his suspension as “illegal”, saying he would approach a federal high court for his reinstatement if the suspension is not lifted within seven days.
In response, Akpabio, through his lawyer, said the decision to suspend the Bauchi senator was that of the senate.
“We have carefully read through your analysis of the facts and circumstances leading to your client’s suspension from the senate,” the letter read.
“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.”
