File: Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
Embattled Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan will on June 27 know her fate in the suit she file at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, seeking to upturn the six-month suspension slammed on her by the Nigerian Senate.
Presiding judge, Justice Binta Nyako on Tuesday slated the matter for judgement, after all the parties had adopted their final briefs of argument.
Cited as defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, are Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate President, Mr. Godswill Akpabio, as well as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, Senator Nedamwen Imasuen.
While the senator representing Kogi Central senatorial district, represented by her legal counsels led by Jubril Okutekpa, senior advocate of Nigeria, SAN, prayed the court to invalidate her suspension which she said was done in disobedience to a valid court order, on the other hand, the defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court to meddle in what they termed as an internal affair of the Senate.
Further more, the defendants accused the plaintiff of breaching an order the court made on April 4, which gagged the parties from making public utterances on the matter pending before it.
Senate President Akpabio, through his lawyer, Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, specifically drew the attention of the court to what he described as “a satirical apology” the plaintiff tendered to him on her Facebook page.
Akpabio insisted that the said apology made mockery of the order of the court.
Meanwhile, before she adjourned the matter for judgement, Justice Nyako said she would firstly consider the issue of contempt that was raised by the parties before deciding all the preliminary objections.
The trial judge stressed that Natasha’s suit raised “recondite issues of law” that would require judicial interpretation.
Newsmata.com.ng reports that Justice Nyako took over the matter following the recusal of the previous judge, Obiora Egwuatu, who had in a ruling on March 25, returned the case-file after the Senate President accused him of bias.
Justice Egwuatu had on March 4, issued an interim order that stopped the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions from going ahead with the disciplinary proceeding that was initiated against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan over an allegation that she flouted rules of the legislative house.
He held that the disciplinary process should be placed on hold, pending the determination of the suit that was brought before him by the embattled female lawmaker.
Justice Egwuatu also gave defendants in the matter, 72 hours to show cause why it should not issue an order of interlocutory injunction to stop them from probing the plaintiff for alleged misconduct, without affording her the privileges stipulated in the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Senate Standing Order 2023, and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.
The interim orders followed an ex-parte application and an affidavit of urgency that was brought before the court by the lawmaker.
However, despite the orders of the court, the Senate Committee held its sitting and suspended the plaintiff for six months.
In a subsequent ruling, Justice Egwuatu amended the interim order he issued in favour of the plaintiff by vacating the aspect that barred the Senate from undertaking any activity within the pendency of the suit.
Not long after the orders were made, the Senate President filed a motion to query the powers of the court to interfere in the affairs of the Senate.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan approached the court after she was summoned to appear before the disciplinary committee following an altercation she had with the Senate President during plenary on February 20.
While protesting alleged arbitrary change of her seating arrangement, the lawmaker repeatedly raised a point of order to be allowed to speak, even though she had been overruled by the Senate President.
Irked by her conduct, the Senate President referred her case to the Ethics Committee.
In a television interview she granted on February 28, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged that her troubles in the Senate began after she rejected unwanted advances from the Senate President, Akpabio.
In an ex-parte application she brought before the court, the lawmaker applied for an order to declare any action the Committee would take within the pendency of her suit, as, “null, void, and of no effect.”
Specifically, the court, in the interim orders it made on Tuesday, held: “It is hereby ordered as follows: An order of this Honourbale Court is made granting leave to the Plaintiff/Applicant to serve the 2nd – 4th Defendants/Respondents with the Originating Summons and all other accompanying processes in this Suit by substituted means, to wit: by serving same through the 1st Defendant (Clerk of the National Assembly) or pasting same on the premises of the National Assembly and publishing same in two national dailies.
“An Order of Interim Injuction of this Honourable Court is made restraining the 2nd Defendant/Defendant’s Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, headed by the 4th Defendant, from proceeding with the purported investigation against the Plaintiff/Applicant for alleged misconduct, sequel to the events that occurred at the plenary of the 2nd Defendant on the 20th day of February 2025, pursuant to the referral by the 2nd Defendant on the 25th of February 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.
As well as, “An order of this Honourable Court is made directing the 1st – 4th Defendants to show cause within 72 hours upon the service of this order on them, why an order of interlocutory injunction should not be granted against them, restraining them from proceeding with the purported investigation against the Plaintiff for alleged misconduct without affording her privileges as stipulated in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), the Senate Standing Order 2023, and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.”