Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday lifted the earlier injunction stopping the senate from suspending the senator representing Kogi Central, Mrs Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Recall that the judge had on March 4, issued an interim order, suspending the senate’s disciplinary process against her.
Akpoti-Uduaghan had filed an ex parte motion seeking to halt an investigation by the senate committee on ethics, privileges, and code of conduct, chaired by Neda Imasuen.
The committee probed allegations of misconduct against her, stemming from an altercation with the senate president, Mr Godswill Akpabio during a February 20 plenary session.
In her suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, she listed the clerk of the national assembly, the senate, its president, and the committee chairman as the first to the fourth defendants.
On March 4, Egwuatu granted an interim injunction, suspending the senate’s disciplinary process against her.
The ruling also declared that any action taken while the suit was pending would be null and void.
However, despite the court’s directive, the senate, on March 6, proceeded to suspend her for six months, accusing her of misconduct.
The senate also directed that her office be sealed and all official properties in her possession returned to the Clerk of the National Assembly.
At yesterday’s proceedings, counsel for the senate, Mr Chikaosolu Ojukwu adopted a motion he filed on March 17, 2025, which sought, among others, “An order discharging or staying the effect of Order No. 4 in the enrolled ex-parte orders of this honourable court made on 4 March 2025, as it prohibits the Senate from exercising its constitutional powers to make laws” and “such further orders as the court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of this case.”
He stressed that on March 4, 2025, the court declared that “any action taken during the pendency of this suit is null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.”
According to him, the said order was vague, ambiguous, and lacking in specificity as it does not specify which of the parties it is targeted at or referring to, and what actions it relates to.
He argued that the law prohibits the granting of a vague order by a court of law, adding that the ex parte order was made to last until the determination of Natasha’s suit.
“By 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 make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“The said Order No. 4 of 4 March 2025, as granted, effectively restrains the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from conducting any of its legislative duties in accordance with its constitutional functions,” he submitted.
He contended that enforcing the said order has denied his clients fair hearing and would result in a constitutional crisis and anarchy, as the entire legislative duties of the Senate will be made to grind to a halt.
The legal team of other defendants, including the senate president’s lawyer, Mr Kehinde Ogunwumiju, aligned with Ojukwu’s submissions and urged the court to set aside the proceedings of March 4, including the orders made during those proceedings.
However, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Mr Michael Numa urged the court to discountenance the submissions of the defence.
He argued that the defence had not shown cause why the orders of the court should be set aside but was instead asking the court to set aside the orders.
He described the development as “clear legislative recklessness.”
Ojukwu responded that there was a difference between court orders obtained by fraud and a bid to vary a subsisting court order.
Court ruling
Ruling on the submissions, the judge held the position that setting aside the order nullifying any Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case “will not in any way prejudice” her case.
The judge refused to set aside the proceedings of 4 March, wherein he made the orders, saying it was not part of the formal prayers of the defense.
“I set aside Order 4 made on 4 March 2025,” the judge said.
The court subsequently fixed March 25 for the hearing of all applications.
