NATASHA: Court overturns suspension, clears Senate probe path

MaTaZ ArIsInG
Dallas, Texas

A Federal High Court in Abuja has overturned its March 4 ruling, which had declared the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate unlawful and void. Justice Obiora Egwuatu vacated the earlier ruling after hearing the arguments from both the plaintiff’s counsel and the lawyers representing the defendants in the case.

On March 4, Justice Egwuatu granted Natasha’s five reliefs, including Order Number Four, which declared any actions taken by the defendants during the suit as null, void, and without any effect.
The judge granted the five prayers after Sanusi Musa, SAN, who represented Natasha, moved the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.

Natasha, representing the Kogi Central Senatorial District, had filed the ex-parte motion against the Clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) and the Senate as the 1st and 2nd defendants.

She also named the President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Sen. Neda Imasuem, who is the Chairman of, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively.

The senator had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the Senate’s committee headed by Imasuem from proceeding with the purported investigation against her for alleged misconduct sequel to the events that occurred at the plenary on Feb. 20, under the referral by the Senate on Feb. 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, among others.

However, on March 17, the Senate, through its lawyer Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, filed a motion on notice seeking an order to set aside Order Number Four in the enrolled ex-parte order issued by Justice Egwuatu against the defendants in Natasha’s suit.

In his motion, Ojukwu urged the judge to vacate the order in the interest of a fair hearing. Citing Section 36(1) of the Constitution, the lawyer argued that Order Number Four was interlocutory and should not have been granted by the court.

He further argued that the order was vague, ambiguous, and lacked specificity, as it did not clarify which party it applied to or what actions it referred to.

Ojukwu contended that the order, in its current form, applied indiscriminately to all actions, without limitation, taken by both the plaintiff/respondent and the defendants. He emphasized that the law prohibits the granting of vague orders by a court of law.

Additionally, he pointed out that the ex-parte order was made to remain in effect until the determination of the suit. Ojukwu cited Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution, stating that the Senate, as one of the Houses of the National Assembly, is established to make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of Nigeria.

On March 17, the Senate, through its lawyer Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, filed a motion seeking to set aside Order Number Four granted by Justice Egwuatu on March 4, 2025, which restrained the Senate from conducting its legislative duties.

Ojukwu argued that enforcing the order would create a constitutional crisis and hinder the Senate’s ability to fulfil its constitutional functions, violating the separation of powers doctrine outlined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution.Related News

He also claimed the court lacked the jurisdiction to issue such an order, which he said infringed upon fair hearing rights under Section 36(1) of the Constitution.

Ojukwu contended that the court had been misled into granting the order and urged it to be declared a nullity.

Other defence counsel, including Charles Yoila and Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, supported Ojukwu’s argument. However, Natasha’s lawyer, Michael Numa, SAN, opposed the motion, describing it as a defence conspiracy.

Numa argued that the defendants had disobeyed the court’s valid order and urged the judge to dismiss the defence application and hold them in contempt.

Numa also pointed out that the Senate had not challenged Orders One, Two, Three, and Five made by the court, and that Order Four was ancillary to the motion.

He argued that the defendant’s application was an affront to the court, urging the judge to disregard their motion and emphasize compliance with the court’s directives.

Justice Egwuatu, after considering the arguments, agreed with the defence and set aside Order Number Four.

The judge adjourned the case until March 25 for the hearing of all pending applications. Following the March 4 order, the Senate had suspended Natasha for six months.

In her contempt charge, the embattled lawmaker argued that her suspension amounted to willful disobedience of the court order issued on March 4.

She stated that the enrolled order of the interim injunction issued by Justice Egwuatu was properly served on the defendants on March 5.

According to Form 48, the defendants/contemnors “deliberately and contumaciously disregarded” the court’s binding directive and “proceeded with actions in flagrant defiance of the authority of the court.”

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER NOW

Support MATAZ ARISING’ journalism of integrity and credibility.

Good journalism ensure the possibility of a good society, an accountable democracy, and a transparent government.

We ask you to consider making a modest support to this noble endeavour.

0.00USD

Amount
0.00

TEXT AD: To advertise here – Email ad@matazarising.com

LATEST POSTS