is article examines the contentious issue of internal disciplinary powers within Nigeria's National Assembly, focusing on the legislature's authority to expel, exclude, and punish its members. This research addresses the growing concern over parliamentary autonomy and constitutional supremacy, particularly in light of recent judicial interventions that have consistently invalidated legislative suspensions exceeding procedural and constitutional boundaries. Through analysis of landmark cases including Senator Ali Ndume v Senate, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege v Senate, and the recently decided Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v Senate, this study reveals a pattern of legislative overreach followed by judicial correction, undermining institutional credibility and democratic representation. This paper critically evaluates the legal foundations of disciplinary powers under the 1999 Constitution, the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017, and the Standing Orders of both chambers, identifying ambiguities that fuel recurring constitutional crises. Through comparative analysis of disciplinary frameworks in the United States, United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada, India, and Australia, this study identifies best practices for Nigeria. This research demonstrates that while all democratic legislatures possess inherent disciplinary authority, successful systems balance parliamentary autonomy with constitutional accountability through clear procedural safeguards, independent ethics committees, and judicial oversight mechanisms. This article proposes comprehensive reforms including codification of clear disciplinary standards, enhancement of ethics committee independence, and institutional respect for constitutional boundaries, concluding that sustainable legislative discipline requires a fundamental shift from parliamentary sovereignty rhetoric to constitutional supremacy practice.
Ibitoye et al. (Mon,) studied this question.