The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday overturned its previous ruling from March 4, which had declared the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate as null and void.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu set aside the earlier order after hearing arguments from both the plaintiff’s counsel and the defendants’ lawyers.
On March 4, the judge had granted Natasha’s five reliefs, including Order Number Four, which nullified any actions taken by the defendants while the case was pending.
This decision was based on an ex-parte motion filed by Natasha’s lawyer, Sanusi Musa, SAN, under case number FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.
Natasha, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, had sued the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Senate as the 1st and 2nd defendants, while also naming the Senate President and Senator Neda Imasuem, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, as the 3rd and 4th defendants.
She sought a court order preventing the Senate committee led by Imasuem from proceeding with its investigation into alleged misconduct related to events at the February 20 plenary session, which was referred to the committee on February 25.
She requested that the investigation be halted until a ruling on her motion for an interlocutory injunction.
However, the Senate, through its lawyer Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, filed a motion on March 17 requesting the court to set aside Order Number Four.
Ojukwu argued that the order was vague, ambiguous, and lacked specificity, as it did not clearly state which party it was directed at or what actions were affected.
He further cited Section 36(1) of the Constitution, emphasizing that the order was interlocutory in nature and should not have been granted.
Ojukwu also maintained that the law prohibits the issuance of vague court orders and urged the court to vacate the ruling in the interest of fair hearing.
Justice Egwuatu ultimately ruled in favor of the Senate, setting aside the March 4 decision.
Read Also: What Natasha Told BBC Concerning Her Suspension
Ojukwu argued that the court’s order violated the principle of separation of powers as outlined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution, asserting that the judiciary lacks the authority to prevent the legislature from carrying out its constitutional duties.
He maintained that setting aside the order would serve the interest of justice, emphasizing that a court cannot issue an interlocutory ruling that affects other parties before the case is concluded.
Ojukwu further claimed that the court had been misled into granting the order and that it violated Section 36(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing.
He, therefore, urged the court to declare the entire March 4 proceedings null and void.
Supporting Ojukwu’s stance, Charles Yoila, representing the Clerk of the National Assembly, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, representing Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and Umeh Kalu, SAN, representing Senator Neda Imasuem, all aligned with his argument.
However, Natasha’s counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, strongly opposed their submissions, describing them as a defense conspiracy.
He stated that on March 18, they had filed a 12-paragraph affidavit along with six exhibits (marked as Natasha 1 to Natasha 6D) documenting the events in question.
Numa urged the court to reject the defence’s application and instead sanction them for contempt of a valid court order.
He argued that the court should not evaluate the orders separately but rather as a whole.
He pointed out that the Senate had not contested Orders One, Two, Three, and Five, emphasizing that Order Four was merely an ancillary directive to enforce the overall motion.
Describing the defence’s application as an attack on the court’s authority, Numa argued that the defendants had failed to address the order requiring them to respond within 72 hours of being served.
He warned that granting their request could lead to judicial chaos, insisting that their only obligation was to appear in court and show cause, as directed.
In his ruling, Justice Egwuatu sided with the defence and set aside Order Number Four from the previously granted reliefs.
He then adjourned the case until March 25 for the hearing of all pending applications.
Following the March 4 order, the Senate went ahead and suspended Natasha on March 7 for six months.
In response, she filed a contempt charge, arguing that her suspension was a deliberate act of disobedience to the existing court order.
She stated that the enrolled interim injunction issued by Justice Egwuatu had been properly served on the defendants on March 5.
According to Form 48, the defendants “deliberately and defiantly” disregarded the court’s directive and acted in blatant violation of its authority.
Join Informant Online WhatsApp Channel With Link Below: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaihFajBadmT29ufud2
