On Wednesday, March 19, 2025, the Federal High Court in Abuja overturned its previous ruling that had invalidated any actions taken during Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s ongoing lawsuit, which contests her suspension by the Senate due to alleged misconduct.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu issued this ruling on the same day.
Reports indicate that Akpoti-Uduaghan submitted an ex parte motion, designated FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, against the Clerk of the National Assembly (NASS), the Senate, the Senate President, and Senator Neda Imasuem, who chairs the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct.
The lawmaker requested an interim injunction to prevent the Senate committee, led by Imasuem, from continuing its investigation into her alleged misconduct, which arose from incidents during the plenary session on February 20 and were referred to the Senate on February 25, until the motion for an interlocutory injunction could be heard and resolved.
On March 4, 2025, Justice Egwuatu granted Akpoti-Uduaghan’s request, prohibiting the involved parties from taking any further actions against her while the case was ongoing (Order 4).
The judge also instructed the first to fourth defendants to respond within 72 hours of being served with the order, explaining why an interlocutory injunction should not be issued against them, preventing them from proceeding with the investigation without granting Akpoti-Uduaghan the rights outlined in the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Senate Standing Orders 2023, and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.
Trustbase News previously reported that despite the court's order, the Nigerian Senate proceeded to suspend Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, effective March 6, 2025, citing breaches of Senate regulations.
In the following proceedings, Justice Egwuatu mandated that the defendants submit their defense in the matter.
On Wednesday, Senate Counsel Chikaosolu Ojukwu SAN presented a motion he filed on March 17, 2025, which requests, among other remedies, “An order to discharge or stay the enforcement of Order No. 4 in the Enrolled ex-parte Orders issued by this Honourable Court on March 4, 2025, as it restricts the Senate from exercising its constitutional authority to legislate,” along with “any additional orders that the Court may find appropriate and necessary given the circumstances of this case.”
He emphasized that on March 4, 2025, the court ruled that “any actions taken during the pendency of this suit are null, void, and without effect.”
Ojukwu argued that the order in question is vague, ambiguous, and lacks clarity, as it fails to identify the specific parties it targets or the actions it pertains to.
He maintained that the law prohibits courts from issuing vague orders, noting that the ex parte order was intended to remain in effect until the resolution of Natasha’s suit.
“According to Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is one of the Houses of the National Assembly established to legislate for the peace, order, and good governance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
He asserted that Order No. 4, as granted on March 4, 2025, effectively prevents the Senate from fulfilling its legislative responsibilities in accordance with its constitutional role.
He argued that enforcing this order has deprived his clients of a fair hearing and could lead to a constitutional crisis and chaos, as it would halt all legislative activities of the Senate.
The legal representatives of other defendants, including the Senate President’s attorney, Kehinde Ogunwumiju SAN, supported Ojukwu's arguments and requested that the court annul the proceedings of March 4, including the orders issued during that session.
Michael Numa SAN, the attorney representing Akpoti-Uduaghan, urged the court to disregard the defense's arguments. He contended that the defense failed to provide sufficient justification for overturning the court's orders and was merely requesting their annulment. He characterized this situation as “clear legislative recklessness.”
In response, Ojukwu pointed out the distinction between court orders obtained through fraudulent means and attempts to modify an existing court order.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justice Egwuatu maintained that nullifying the order that invalidated any actions related to Natasha’s case “will not in any way prejudice” her situation. The judge declined to annul the proceedings from March 4, during which the orders were issued, stating that this was not included in the defense's formal requests.
“I set aside Order 4 made on 4th March 2025,” the judge declared.
The court subsequently scheduled March 25, 2025, for the hearing of all pending applications.
It is important to note that the conflict between Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Akpabio gained significant attention after she was instructed to change her seat during a plenary session. On February 28, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan accused Akpabio of making inappropriate advances towards her during a visit to his residence in December 2023.
Previously, she had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Akpabio concerning these allegations. Following a reshuffle prompted by opposition members aligning with the majority, her Senate seat was reassigned. She opposed this relocation, resulting in a confrontation with Akpabio.
Her suspension has elicited varied responses within the political arena. Despite attempts by some senators to reduce the suspension to three months, the Senate upheld the six-month term through a majority vote. The consequences of her suspension include the freezing of her salary and allowances, as well as the withdrawal of her security detail.
Some legislators and analysts consider the decision to be an essential measure for upholding legislative discipline, while others contend that the penalties are overly harsh and may establish a troubling precedent for suppressing dissent in the Senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment