PARIS OLYMPIC GAMES
The suspended Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, and Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, were at odds on Wednesday regarding the Senate’s attempt to vacate a Federal High Court order issued on March 4.
The order had prohibited the Senate from taking disciplinary action against Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Persecondnews reports that the Senate, through its lawyer Mr. Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), filed a motion on March 17 seeking to set aside Order Number 4, issued by Justice Obiora Egwuatu on March 4, in the lawsuit filed by Natasha.
The Senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District had filed a lawsuit against the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Senate, listing them as the 1st and 2nd defendants, respectively, in a motion ex-parte marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.
She also listed the President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Sen. Neda Imasuem, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, as the 3rd and 4th defendants, respectively.
Persecondnews recalls that the embattled lawmaker had sought to temporarily halt the Senate’s committee investigation, led by Sen. Imasuem, into her alleged misconduct during the February 20 plenary session.
The investigation was triggered by a Senate referral on February 25, prompting her to seek an interim injunction to halt the probe until a decision is made on her motion for an interlocutory injunction.
In Order Four of the five reliefs she sought, which Justice Egwuatu granted, Natasha had sought an order declaring that any action taken during the pendency of the suit is null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
However, the Senate, acting through its lawyer, Ojukwu, countered with a request to set aside Order Number Four.
Ojukwu requested that the judge vacate the order to ensure a fair hearing, emphasizing the importance of allowing the legal process to unfold without prejudice.
Citing Section 36(1) of the constitution, Ojukwu argued that Order Number Four was an interlocutory order that should not have been granted by the court.
He said: “It is my submission that the court has made an interlocutory order. The court cannot make an order that will affect the other parties before the end of the case.”
Ojukwu claimed that the court had been misled into granting Order Number Four, along with other orders that were made.
According to him, the order will offend Section 36 (1) which talks about fair hearing.
He, therefore, urged the court to hold that the entire proceedings of March 4 upon which that breach occured was in nullity.
Counsel for the clerk, Mr. Charles Yoila, as well as Mrs. Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), and Mr. Umeh Kalu (SAN), who represented Akpabio and Imasuem respectively, all supported Ojukwu’s argument.
However, Natasha’s lawyer, Mr. Michael Numa (SAN), countered their arguments, presenting a different opinion.
Numa characterized their argument as a collaborative attempt by the defence to deceive the court.
He said: “We filed an affidavit evidence of 12 paragraphs on March 18 in opposition to the motion on notice. It is accompanied by six exhibits marked as Natasha 1 to Natasha 6D, chronicling the event that happened.”
Numa urged the court to dismiss the defence application and exercise its disciplinary powers on them for alleged contempt of the valid court order.
He argued that the defendants had brazenly disobeyed the court’s order, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the law.
In response to Ojukwu’s argument, Numa countered that “parties are bound by the prayers on the motion paper” and implored the court to disregard and dismiss the application.
Numa contended that the court should examine all the orders in their entirety, as part of the ex-parte motion, rather than addressing them selectively.
He said that their argument was irrelevant and lacked merit, pointing out that the Senate, the second defendant, did not question the validity of Orders One, Two, Three, and Five issued by the court.
He said: “The fact that Order Four was made is only an ancillary order to give effect to the motion that until the matter is dispensed with.”
Numa described the application by the defence as an affront on the court, that the judge should set aside the orders they had not challenged.
He said the defendants had not even addressed the order directing them to show cause within 72 hours upon the service of the order.
Numa said: “This is an invitation to anarchy My Lord. Whatever reservation they have, their only duty is to come to court. The order was that the respondents to come and show the course. Their application is self-defeating.”
After hearing their arguments, Justice Egwuatu stood down the case for ruling.
Details shortly…
Leave a comment