Justice Obiora Egwuatu of a Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, recused himself from the suit filed by Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, against the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and others.
The suit seeks to stop the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions from going ahead with the disciplinary proceedings over alleged misconduct by Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Justice Egwuatu announced his withdrawal from the case over allegations of bias levelled against the court by Akpabio, who is the 3rd defendant in the matter.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, the judge, after taking the appearance of lawyers for the parties in the suit, announced his decision to withdraw from the case.
He cited the allegation as the major reason for his decision.
It was gathered that the senate president had expressed lack of confidence in the ability of the court to do justice on the matter, hence the reason for the development.
The judge subsequently ordered that the case file be remitted back to the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, for reassignment.
Justice Egwuatu had, on March 19, set aside its order of March 4, declaring the suspension of Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate as null and void.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a ruling, vacated the suit after listening to the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and lawyers to the defendants in the suit.
NAN observes that though the court had earlier fixed today for the hearing of the matter, March 19 was however, rescheduled to take the motion on notice filed by the Senate (2nd defendant) to seek for the order vacating the March 4 order which declared any action taken by the defendants during the pendency of the suit as null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
The judge had granted Natasha’s five reliefs on March 4, including Order Number Four which declared any action taken by the defendants during the pendency of the suit as null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
The judge granted the five prayers after Sanusi Musa, SAN, who appeared for Natasha, moved the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.
Natasha, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, had, in the motion ex-parte, sued the clerk of the National Assembly and the Senate as 1st and 2nd defendants.
She also named the President of the Senate and Sen. Neda Imasuem, who is the Chairman, 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, the Senate, in a motion on notice filed on March 17 by its lawyer, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, had sought an order setting aside Order Number Four in the enrolled ex-parte order made by Justice Egwuatu against the defendants in Natasha’s suit.
The Senate, through Mr Ojukwu, urged the judge to vacate the order in the interest of fair hearing.
“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.
“That 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 by its constitutional functions.”
Mr Ojukwu said enforcing the said order, as granted, would result in a constitutional crisis and anarchy, as the entire legislative duties of the Senate would be made to grind to a halt.
“The order offends the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“This honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to restrain parliament from conducting its constitutional duties,” he said.
He therefore urged the court to hold that the entire proceedings of March 4 upon which that breach occurred was in nullity.
Lawyer to the clerk, Charles Yoila; Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, who appeared for Akpabio and Umeh Kalu, SAN, who represented Imasuem, aligned themselves with Ojukwu’s argument.
However, counsel who appeared for Natasha, Michael Numa, SAN, disagreed with their submissions.
He described their argument as the conspiracy of the defence.
The lawyer 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, with audacity, disobeyed the order of the court.
While responding to the argument of Ojukwu, Numa submitted that “parties are bound by the prayers on the motion paper.”
He urged the court to discountenance the application.
The lawyer argued that the court must consider the entire orders in their ex-parte motion and not in piecemeal.
He said their argument was immaterial.
According to him, the Senate (2nd defendant) did not mention the propriety of Orders One, Two, Three and Five made by this honourable court.
“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,” he said.
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.
“This is an invitation to anarchy my lord,” he said, citing previous cases to back his argument.
“Whatever reservation they have, their only duty is to come to court. The order was for the respondents to come and show the course.
“Their application is self-defeating,” he argued.
NAN reports that in her contempt charge, the embattled lawmaker argued that her suspension constituted wilful disobedience to the subsisting court order issued on March 4.
She stated that an enrolled order of the interim injunction issued by Justice Egwuatu was duly served on the defendants on March 5.
According to Form 48, the defendants/contemnors “deliberately and contumaciously disregarded” the binding directive of the court and “proceeded with acts in flagrant defiance of the authority of the court.”
NAN
