Should Senator Adams Oshiomhole Be Suspended? A Legal Examination Of Equality, Privilege, And Legislative Conduct -By Jacob Shekwobashawye Samuel

There has been a debate on whether Senator Adams Oshiomhole should be suspended from the Senate by the Senate giving his recent outburst while performing some of his legislative duties as a Lawmaker.

Critics argue that the said Senator should be suspended just as was done to a particular Senator some time back.

According to them, Senator Adams Oshiomhole has walked on the same route that a particular Senator walked on some time ago which lead to her suspension and so he should equally be suspended in order to not only show equality but establish same in respect to the application of punitive measures against any erring Senator.

But we need to take note of the fact that equality under the law is not achieved by treating every situation identically; rather, it requires that similar circumstances be subjected to similar legal principles.

Moving on, I dare say that the circumstances surrounding the previous suspension and the current controversy appear fundamentally different in both fact and legal character.

For emphasis, the former Senator’s suspension was reportedly connected to an alleged breach of the Senate’s Rules and such matters fall squarely within the disciplinary authority of the Senate and its internal regulatory framework.

On the other hand, the recent statements made by Senator Adams Oshiomhole irrespective of how controversial, passionate, or unpopular they may have been or perceived, relate primarily to his exercise of freedom of expression within the context of legislative engagement.

It is a recognised principle that lawmakers enjoy certain protections and privileges regarding statements made in the course of performing their legislative duties. Section 1 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, recognises the protection accorded to members of legislative houses in respect of their legislative functions.
This was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Lawan v. F.R.N. (2022) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1829) 279.

The Court went further to say that:
“Immunity is attached to a member of a Legislative House in respect of words spoken before the House or a committee thereof or in respect to the House or committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him in the House or its committee.”

Giving the foregoing, it’s therefore, not every statement made by a legislator that amounts to misconduct deserving of suspension.

A democratic legislature must tolerate a degree of disagreement, criticism, and even strong expressions of opinion.

Where a lawmaker’s conduct is considered excessive or inappropriate but does not amount to a clear violation of legislative rules or the law, the appropriate response may simply be a caution or a call to order.

However, it should also be noted that legislative privilege is not an unlimited shield. Statements or actions that fall within recognised exceptions, such as defamatory, criminal, or treasonable conduct, may expose a legislator to legal consequences despite the protection usually attached to legislative duties.

Consequently, the demand for equal treatment must be based on equal circumstances. The principle of equality before the law does not mean that different facts must receive identical treatment; rather, it means that the same legal standards must be applied where the circumstances are substantially similar.

And so reasonably, while both situations may raise moral and political questions, they are not at all legally identical.

A sound legal analysis must be guided by facts, applicable laws, and the specific circumstances of each case, rather than public sentiment, pressure, or political considerations.

Nonetheless, it is very important for lawmakers to accord each other some respect and play by the Rules as that is the only way utmost decorum can be achieved in the Chambers in order to enable them carry out their legislative functions efficiently.