News Investigators/ The suspended Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, on Wednesday, disagreed over the Senate’s application seeking to vacate the order made by a Federal High Court in Abuja on March 4.
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, among orders, in the enrolled ex-parte order made by Justice Obiora Egwuatu on March 4 against the defendants in Natasha’s suit.
Natasha, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, had, in a motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, sued clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) and the Senate as 1st and 2nd defendants.
Akpoti-Uduaghan also named the President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Sen. Neda Imasuem, who is the Chairman, Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively.
The embattled lawmaker 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, pursuant to the referral by the Senate on Feb. 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.
In the order number 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, through Ojukwu, sought an order setting aside the number four order.
Ojukwu urged the judge to vacate the order in the interest of fair hearing.
Citing Action 36(1) of the constitution, the lawyer argued that order number four was interlocutory in nature and ought not to have been granted by the court.
“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.
The lawyer alleged that the court was misled into granting that order among other orders made.
According to him, the order will offend the 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.
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.
But Natasha’s counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, disagreed with their submissions.
He described their argument as the conspiracy of the defence.
“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,” he said.
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 that the respondents to come and show course
“Their application is self-defeating,” he argued.
Justice Egwuatu after listening to their argument, stood down the matter for ruling.
NAN