I’m Not Responsible For Ningi’s Suspension, Akpabio Replies Falana

A counsel to the Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Mr Umeh Kalu (SAN), has told suspended Senator Ahmed Ningi that his suspension was a decision of the Senate and not that of his client.
Kalu stated this in a letter in response to an earlier one written on behalf of Senator Ningi by his lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), accusing Akpabio of instigating the suspension of the senator representing Bauchi Central.

Ningi was suspended by the upper legislative house for three months on March 14, 2024, following an interview he granted to BBC, where he accused the senate leadership of padding the 2024 budget.
Following the development, his lawyer, Falana, in a letter to the senate president entitled, “Request to lift the suspension of Senator Abdul Ahmed Ningi, dated March 27, 2024, gave Akpabio seven days to lift the suspension placed on Ningi or face legal action.

But in the letter dated April 3, 2024, Chief Kalu maintained that the senate president was not responsible for suspending the embattled Senator.
The lawyer stated that after he analysed the facts and circumstances leading to Ningi’s suspension from the Senate, he could not find any reason to support Falana’s accusation that his client had sole culpability in the said suspension.

Kalu also pointed out that the decision and resolution to suspend Senator Ningi was that of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria sitting in plenary and not that of Senator Akpabio.

He further said, “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 equally includes pronouncing the majority decision of the Legislative House at the end of debate and voting.

RELATED

Residents Jubilate Over Killing Of 3 Notorious Bandits In Sokoto

54 minutes ago

Gov Sani Donates Vehicles To Federal Varsity Kachia

2 hours ago

“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 Rules guide legislative proceedings and that certain privileges ensure to legislators for their actions in the course of legislative sessions,” he said.