The recent legal proceedings involving Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan have raised questions about the implications of a court conviction on her status as a serving senator. Central to this debate is Section 66(c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which outlines the disqualifications from membership of the National Assembly.
Section 66(c) of the Constitution:
“No person shall be qualified for election to the Senate or the House of Representatives if:
(c) he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or fraud, or any other offence punishable by imprisonment of more than one year… unless he has been granted a pardon.”
This provision is aimed at preserving the integrity of the National Assembly by excluding individuals with criminal convictions involving moral turpitude, such as fraud, dishonesty, or any offence attracting a sentence exceeding one year.
Key Elements of S.66(c):
- Conviction + Sentencing: Mere accusation or trial is not enough. There must be:
A valid conviction by a competent court.
A sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year.
- Nature of Offence: Must involve:
Fraud, Dishonesty, or any other criminal offence with a prison sentence of more than one year.
- Pardon: A convicted person is disqualified unless they have been granted a presidential or state pardon under Section 175 or 212 respectively.
Implication for Senator Natasha:
If Senator Natasha is convicted by a competent court and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year, without a subsequent pardon, she automatically becomes disqualified from continuing as a senator under Section 66(c). However:
If she appeals the conviction and it is stayed or quashed, her disqualification does not immediately take effect.
A conviction alone, without finality (i.e., pending appeal), may not necessarily bar her until all judicial avenues are exhausted.
A fine, community service, or a sentence less than one year may not trigger disqualification under Section 66(c), unless the offence involves fraud or dishonesty.
Conclusion:
Section 66(c) of the Nigerian Constitution acts as a safeguard to ensure that those who represent the people in the National Assembly are of high moral and ethical standing. While court proceedings against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan may lead to disqualification if they meet the criteria set out in the Constitution, any such disqualification must be based on a final conviction and sentencing as specified.
Until a final verdict is reached and all appeals exhausted, the presumption of innocence remains in her favour, and her seat cannot be declared vacant on the basis of mere accusation or non-final conviction.
– Abbas Yunusa writes from Abuja.
