Suspension: Court did not vacate its earlier orders restraining the Senate from investigating Natasha Akpoti – Uduaghan
Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025- Between Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan v. The Clerk of the National Assembly & 3 Ors.
It will be recalled that on March 4, 2025, the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja and presided over by Justice Egwatu, issued several orders, including a restraining order preventing the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from proceeding with its investigation into the Plaintiff regarding the events that transpired on February 20, 2025, at the Senate Chambers pending the hearing and determination of the Motion no notice. The Court also directed the Senate to show cause within 72 hours why the interlocutory injunction should not be granted.
Despite an explicit acknowledgment of this enrolled Court Order, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria proceeded with the investigation and suspended the Plaintiff, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, on March 6, 2025. This action was widely condemned by both local and international communities, civil society organizations, and the Nigerian Bar Association, all of whom decried the legislature’s actions as lawless.
On March 7, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an application for a Mandatory Injunction, confirmed by the Court registry, seeking to invoke the Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction to reverse any actions taken by the National Assembly during the pendency of the subsisting order. The application was duly served on all parties.
On March 10, 2025, the Federal High Court, once again sitting in Abuja under Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwatu, declined the Plaintiff’s application to prioritize the Mandatory Injunction. Instead, the case was adjourned to March 25, 2025, for the hearing of all applications. The Court also instructed the parties to file and exchange their processes accordingly.
However, in a sudden turn of events, a letter was submitted on March 17, 2025, by Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, on behalf of the 2nd Defendant (the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria), despite prior representation by Umeh Kalu, SAN, and P.B. Daudu, SAN. This letter prompted the Court to abridge the adjourned date and expedite hearing on the motion to vacate Order 4, despite the Senate’s contempt of the Court’s orders. Surprisingly, the Court issued a hearing notice within an hour of receiving the letter, advancing the matter from the previously scheduled March 25 to March 19, 2025, to address the motion raised in the letter. This abrupt response has raised significant concerns.
This development coincides with petitions filed against the Judge by the Senate to the National Judicial Council and other questionable steps, including an appeal by the Senate President challenging the interim order at the Court of Appeal—actions that appear aimed at intimidating the Court.
At the resumed hearing, the Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, drew the Court’s attention to its earlier ruling, urging it to adhere to the record from March 10, 2025, to hear all pending applications together on the 25th day of March, 2025. He argued that the mere change of counsel by the 2nd Defendant did not invalidate the subsisting orders to hear all applications collectively. He further stated that there is no reason why this application would be given priority over the over applications that goes to very root of the Court’s adjudicatory authority and that the Court is bound by its orders.
However, unexpectedly, the Court deviated from its ruling of March 10, 2025, and proceeded to hear arguments on the application filed by Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, on March 17, 2025, seeking to set aside just Order 4 of the Ex Parte Order granted by the Court on March 4, 2025. This application, filed less than three days earlier, was hurriedly entertained by the Court, despite the Plaintiff’s pending application for a mandatory injunction to address the National Assembly’s blatant disregard for the Court’s order and other preliminary objections.
The Court subsequently heard the application filed by the 2nd Defendant, which was vehemently opposed by the Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, who emphasized the contemptuous actions of the Senate in defying the Court’s orders. He argued that the Senate was not entitled to any further orders from the same Court it had disrespected. After standing down the matter for a few hours, the Court returned to deliver a ruling, offering clarification on the scope of Order 4. Contrary to the interpretation sought by the 2nd Defendant—that the order was meant to halt the entire legislative function of the National Assembly. The Court noted that from the material before the Court the National Assembly has been carrying out its legislative functions without an hinderance for its order—the Court clarified that owing to the varying interpretations of the order, it will set aside the consequential aspects of Order 4 which was simply meant to give effect to the predicate orders.
Contrary to false reports circulating, the Court did not set aside Orders 1, 2, or 3, which included orders restraining the Senate’s Ethics Committee from continuing with itsz investigation into the Plaintiff’s alleged conduct while the motion for a interlocutory injunction remained pending. Additionally, the Court did not reverse its directive for the Defendants to show cause within 72 hours or overturn the order to maintain the status quo ante bellum. The Court’s decision only involved the clarification of Order 4, due to the differing interpretations of it by the Defendants.
However, the Court’s decision to prioritize the motion filed by Mr. Ojukwu, SAN, and the failure to address the contempt raised by the Plaintiff’s counsel, even on its own volition on both March 10 and March 19, 2025, has sparked significant concern. The Court’s refusal to address the clear contempt of its orders undermines the integrity of the entire process.
Commentators have noted that the Court’s reluctance to address the blatant contempt of its orders, as raised by the Plaintiff’s Counsel; Michael Numa, SAN is troubling and casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process. It is important to highlight that this issue transcends the Plaintiff, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, and touches on the fundamental authority of the judiciary as a whole to make and enforce its orders.
These developments raise serious questions about the state of justice delivery in Nigeria and the protection of the rule of law.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to March 25, 2025, for the hearing of all pending applications.
Leave a Reply