![\"\"](\"https:\/\/panoramanews.com.ng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Z-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Natasha<\/p>\n
By Amah<\/p>\n
Kindly share:<\/p>\n
Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja on Wednesday, set aside his order of March 4, declaring the suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Senate as null and void.<\/p>\n
The judge vacated the order after listening to the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and lawyers to the defendants in the suit.<\/p>\n
Justice Egwuatu had granted Natasha\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
He granted the five prayers after Sanusi Musa, SAN, who appeared for Natasha, moved the ex-parte motion\u00a0marked: FHC\/ABJ\/CS\/384\/2025.<\/p>\n
Natasha, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, had, in the motion ex-parte, sued the clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) and the Senate as 1st and 2nd defendants.<\/p>\n
She also named the President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Sen. Neda Imasuen, who is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct, as 3rd and 4th defendants, respectively.<\/p>\n
The senator had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the Senate\u2019s committee headed by Imasuen from proceeding with the purported investigation against her for alleged misconduct sequel to the events that occurred at the plenary on Feb. 20, according to the referral by the Senate on Feb. 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, among others.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s suit.<\/p>\n
The Senate, through Ojukwu, urged the judge to vacate the order in the interest of a fair hearing.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
He argued that the said Order Number Four was vague, ambiguous and lacking in specificity as it did not specify which of the parties it was targeted at or referring to and what actions it related to.<\/p>\n
He also argued that the order, in the form in which it was granted, \u201crefers to all actions of whatever nature, without any limitation, taken by both the plaintiff\/ respondent and the defendants.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to him, the law prohibits the granting of a vague order by a court of law.<\/p>\n
He said the order, which was made exparte, was made to last until the determination of the suit.<\/p>\n
\u201cBy 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat 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 under its constitutional functions.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe order offends the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to restrain parliament from conducting its constitutional duties,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He said it would be in the interest of justice to grant their application.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The lawyer alleged that the court was misled into granting that order among other orders made.<\/p>\n
According to him, the order will offend Section 36(1) which talks about fair hearing.<\/p>\n
He, therefore, urged the court to hold that the entire proceedings of March 4 upon which that breach occurred were in nullity.<\/p>\n
Lawyer to the clerk, Charles Yoila; Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, who appeared for Akpabio and Umeh Kalu, SAN, who represented Imasuem, aligned themselves with Ojukwu\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n
But counsel, who appeared for Natasha, Michael Numa, SAN, disagreed with their submissions.<\/p>\n
He described their argument as the conspiracy of the defence.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe filed an affidavit evidence of 12 paragraphs on March 18 in opposition to the motion on notice.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is accompanied by six exhibits marked as Natasha 1 to Natasha 6D, chronicling the event that happened,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
He argued that the defendants had, with audacity, disobeyed the order of the court.<\/p>\n
While responding to the argument of Ojukwu, Numa submitted that \u201cparties are bound by the prayers on the motion paper.\u201d<\/p>\n
He urged the court to discount the application.<\/p>\n
The lawyer argued that the court must consider the entire orders in their ex-parte motion and not piecemeal.<\/p>\n
He said their argument was immaterial.<\/p>\n
According to him, the Senate (2nd defendant) did not mention the propriety of Orders One, Two, Three and Five made by this honourable court.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact that Order Four was made is only an ancillary order to give effect to the motion until the matter is dispensed with,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Numa described the application by the defence as an affront to the court that the judge should set aside the orders they had not challenged.<\/p>\n
He said the defendants had not even addressed the order directing them to show cause within 72 hours upon the service of the order.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is an invitation to anarchy my lord,\u201d he said, citing previous cases to back his argument.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhatever reservation they have, their only duty is to come to court. The order was that the respondents to come and show cause<\/p>\n
\u201cTheir application is self-defeating,\u201d he argued.<\/p>\n
Delivering the ruling, Justice Egwuatu agreed with the argument of the defence and set aside Order number Four from the prayers earlier granted.<\/p>\n
The judge adjourned the matter until March 25 for a hearing of all pending applications.<\/p>\n
After the March 4 order, the Senate proceeded to suspend Natasha in March for six months.<\/p>\n
In her contempt charge, the embattled lawmaker argued that her suspension constituted wilful disobedience to the subsisting court order issued on March 4.<\/p>\n
She stated that an enrolled order of the interim injunction issued by Justice Egwuatu was duly served on the defendants on March 5.<\/p>\n
According to Form 48, the defendants\/contemnors \u201cdeliberately and contumaciously disregarded\u201d the binding directive of the court and \u201cproceeded with acts in flagrant defiance of the authority of the court.\u201d (NAN)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Natasha By Amah Kindly share: Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja on Wednesday, set aside his order…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4990,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[1238,1189],"class_list":["post-5216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-federal-high-court","tag-natasha-akpoti-uduaghan"],"yoast_head":"\n