The Federal High Court judge, Obiora Egwuatu, on Tuesday withdrew from Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s pending suit, which challenges her suspension by the Senate over allegations of misconduct, based on allegations of bias by one of those sued by her.
Recall that the judge had, 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 of recusal on Tuesday.
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).
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.
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.”
- 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.
Ruling on the submissions on Wednesday, Justice Egwuatu “set aside Order 4 made on 4th March 2025”.
What transpired in court
At the resumed proceedings on Tuesday, Justice Obiora Egwuatu recused himself from the suit.
- Justice Egwuatu announced his withdrawal from the case was “based on allegations of bias levelled against the court” by one of the defendants.
- The judge said that justice is rooted in confidence in the court and that once a litigant expresses his belief that there is bias or likelihood of bias on the part of the judge, it will not be in the interest of justice for the judge to continue.
“One of the defendants in this matter has expressed such beliefs(of bias) in writing. In that circumstance, the honorable thing for the court to do is to desist from the conduct of the matter,” he added.
The judge subsequently ordered that the case file be remitted back to the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, for further directive.
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.
Her suspension has sparked mixed reactions within the political landscape.
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.
