The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, March 19, 2025, set aside(reversed) its earlier order which nullified “any action” taken during Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s pending suit which challenges her suspension by the Senate over allegations of misconduct.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu gave the order in a ruling on Wednesday.
Nairametrics previously reported that Akpoti-Uduaghan had filed a motion ex parte, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, suing the Clerk of the National Assembly (NASS), the Senate, the Senate President, and Senator Neda Imasuem, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct.
The lawmaker sought an “order of interim injunction restraining the Senate’s committee, chaired by Imasuem, from proceeding with the purported investigation against her for alleged misconduct, which stemmed from events that occurred during plenary on February 20 and were referred by the Senate on February 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction.”
On March 4, 2025, Justice Egwuatu granted Akpoti-Uduaghan’s motion, barring the parties from taking further action against her while the suit was pending( Order 4).
The judge also directed the “1st to 4th defendants to appear within 72 hours of being served the order and show cause why an interlocutory injunction should not be granted against them, restraining them from proceeding with the purported investigation against the plaintiff (Akpoti-Uduaghan) without affording her the privileges stipulated in the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Senate Standing Orders 2023, and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.”
Nairametrics previously reported that amid the court order, the Nigerian Senate went ahead to suspend Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, effective March 6, 2025, citing violations of Senate rules.
In subsequent proceedings, Justice Egwuatu ordered the defendants to file their defense in the case.
What Transpired in Court
At Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel for the Senate, Chikaosolu Ojukwu SAN, adopted a motion he filed on March 17, 2025, which seeks, among other reliefs, “An order discharging or staying the effect of Order No. 4 in the Enrolled ex-parte Orders of this Honourable Court made on 4th 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 is 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 4th 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 will 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, Kehinde Ogunwumiju SAN, aligned with the submissions of Ojukwu and urged the court to set aside the proceedings of March 4, including the orders made during those proceedings.
However, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Michael Numa SAN, urged the court to discountenance the submissions of the defense.
- He argued that the defense 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 is a difference between court orders obtained by fraud and a bid to vary a subsisting court order.
Court Ruling
Ruling on the submissions on Wednesday, Justice Egwuatu held the position that setting aside the order nullifying any action pending Natasha’s case “will not in any way prejudice” her case.
- The judge refused to set aside the proceedings of March 4, wherein he made the orders, saying it was not part of the formal prayers of the defense.
“I set aside Order 4 made on 4th March 2025,” the judge said.
The Court subsequently fixed March 25, 2025, for the hearing of all applications.
Backstory
The altercation between Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Akpabio became widely publicized after she was asked to change her seat during plenary.
- On February 28, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan accused Akpabio of making inappropriate advances toward her during a visit to his home in December 2023.
- Akpoti-Uduaghan had previously filed a defamation lawsuit against Akpabio over these allegations.
- Her Senate seat was reassigned following a reshuffle triggered by opposition members switching to the majority wing.
She resisted the relocation, leading to a confrontation with Akpabio.
Her suspension has sparked mixed reactions within the political landscape.
- Despite efforts by some senators to reduce the suspension to three months, the Senate upheld the six-month decision through a majority vote.
- The penalties associated with her suspension include freezing her salary and allowances, as well as the withdrawal of her security detail.
While some lawmakers and analysts view the decision as a necessary enforcement of legislative discipline, others argue that the penalties are excessive and could set a dangerous precedent for stifling dissent within the Senate.
