Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Godswill Akpabio are at odds regarding the Senate’s request to overturn a court order issued by a Federal High Court in Abuja on March 4. The disagreement unfolded in court on Wednesday as both parties presented their arguments before Justice Obiora Egwuatu.
The Senate, through its lawyer Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), filed a motion on March 17, asking the court to set aside Order Number Four of the ruling, which was part of an ex-parte order granted to Senator Natasha. The embattled senator, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, had earlier filed a suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) and the Senate as the first and second defendants. Also included in the case were Senate President Akpabio and Senator Neda Imasuem, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, as third and fourth defendants.
Natasha’s legal battle stems from an investigation launched against her over alleged misconduct during a Senate plenary session on February 20. The Senate referred the matter to the Ethics Committee on February 25. In response, Natasha sought an interim court order to stop the committee from proceeding with the investigation until the full case was heard. The court granted her request, ruling that any action taken while the case was still in court would be invalid.
However, the Senate, represented by Ojukwu, urged the judge to cancel this ruling. He argued that Order Number Four was interlocutory and should not have been granted. “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,” he said. Ojukwu further claimed that the court had been misled into issuing the order, stating that it violated Section 36(1) of the constitution, which guarantees fair hearing.
Other defense lawyers, including Charles Yoila (representing the Clerk of NASS), Kehinde Ogunwumiju (representing Akpabio), and Umeh Kalu (representing Imasuem), supported Ojukwu’s argument. They contended that the court order was unfair and should be dismissed.
On the other hand, Natasha’s lawyer, Michael Numa (SAN), strongly opposed their position. He described their argument as a coordinated effort by the defense, stating, “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 reject the defense’s request, insisting that the defendants had already disobeyed the court’s ruling. He argued that the Senate’s attempt to challenge only one part of the ruling, while ignoring the other orders, was unjustified. “The Senate (2nd defendant) did not mention the propriety of Orders One, Two, Three and Five made by this honourable court,” he noted.
Furthermore, Numa claimed that the defense’s request was an attack on the court’s authority. He insisted that the defendants had failed to comply with the judge’s order to show cause within 72 hours of being served. “This is an invitation to anarchy, my lord,” he said, while citing previous cases to back his argument.
After hearing from both sides, Justice Egwuatu temporarily paused the session and reserved his ruling on the matter.
