Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who was assigned to hear a suit that was filed by the suspended Senator for Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, on Tuesday, recused himself from the case.
The trial judge based his decision on a petition the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, wrote to challenge his objectivity in the matter.
Though the suit was originally fixed for hearing, however, when the matter was called up by the court’s clerk, Justice Egwuatu, announced his decision in a short ruling he delivered.
He said the case-file would be returned back to the Chief Judge for a reassignment to another judge.
It will be recalled that Justice Egwuatu had on March 4, issued an interim order that stopped the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions from going ahead with the disciplinary proceeding that was initiated against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan over an allegation that she flouted rules of the legislative house.
He held that the disciplinary process should be placed on hold, pending the determination of the suit that was brought before him by the embattled female lawmaker.
More so, Justice Egwuatu gave defendants in the matter, 72 hours to show cause why it should not issue an order of interlocutory injunction to stop them from probing the plaintiff for alleged misconduct, without affording her the privileges stipulated in the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Senate Standing Order 2023, and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.
He granted permission for the plaintiff to serve the Originating Summons and all the accompanying processes on all the defendants, through substituted means.
It held that they should be served by handing the processes to the Clerk of the National Assembly or by pasting them on the premises of the National Assembly and publishing same in two national dailies.
The interim orders followed an ex-parte application and an affidavit of urgency that was brought before the court by the lawmaker.
However, despite the orders of the court, the Senate Committee held its sitting and slammed the plaintiff with a six months suspension.
Following an application by the defendants, Justice Egwuatu subsequently amended the interim order he issued in favour of the plaintiff, by vacating the aspect that barred the Senate from undertaking any activity within the pendency of the suit.
The Senate President had through his team of lawyers led by Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, queried the powers of the court to meddle in the affairs of the Senate.
The Judge stated, “Justice is rooted in confidence in the court. Once a litigant expresses his belief that there is bias or likelihood of bias on the part of the Judge, it will not be in the interest of justice for the Judge to continue.
“One of the defendants in this matter has expressed such belief in writing. In that circumstance, the honourable thing for the court to do is to desist from the conduct of the matter. Accordingly, I recuse myself from this matter. The case file is accordingly forwarded to my lord, the chief Judge, for further directive.”
The lawsuit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, lists as defendants the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, Senator Neda Imasuem.
Earlier, on March 19, Justice Egwuatu vacated an order he had issued on March 4, which stated that any actions taken by the Senate and others while the lawsuit was ongoing would be considered “null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.”
The Judge’s decision to vacate the order followed arguments presented by the Senate’s legal representatives, who contended that the order should be overturned.
Counsel for the Senate, Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), argued that the order 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.”
He further stated that the order, in its given form, applied to “all actions of whatever nature, without any limitation, taken by both the plaintiff/respondent and the defendants.”
Ojukwu also asserted that issuing such an indefinite order contradicts legal principles. He noted that the directive, which was granted ex parte, was meant to remain in effect until the lawsuit was resolved.
Referencing the Nigerian Constitution, he argued: “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….
“The said order number 4 of 4th March, 2025, as granted, effectively restrains the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from conducting any of its legislative duties in accordance with its constitutional functions.”
Ojukwu further contended that enforcing the order would create a constitutional crisis, halting the Senate’s legislative functions.
“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 maintained.
According to Ojukwu, the court had been misled into issuing the order, and he urged it to declare the March 4 proceedings invalid due to this misrepresentation.
Other defense lawyers, including Charles Yoila (representing the Clerk of the National Assembly), Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN (representing the Senate President), and Umeh Kalu, SAN (representing Senator Imasuem), supported Ojukwu’s submissions.
