By Ebiere Kekeboro
In a dramatic turn of events, a Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from conducting a disciplinary proceeding against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central. The court’s order was given by Presiding Judge Obiora Egwuatu on Tuesday, following an ex parte application filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan’s counsel.
The court order, that the committee is restrained from proceeding with the investigation against Akpoti-Uduaghan for alleged misconduct, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction. The order also directs the defendants to show cause within 72 hours why an order of interlocutory injunction should not be granted against them.
The presiding judge, Obiora Egwuatu, gave the order on Tuesday following an ex parte application filed by Akpoti-Uduaghan’s counsel.
According to the enrolled court order obtained by our Correspondent on Wednesday, the court said, “Upon reading the twenty-five (25) paragraphed Affidavit in support of the Motion Ex-parte and the Affidavit of Urgency, both deposed to by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, Adult, Female, Christian, Nigerian citizen of Kogi Central Senatorial District, and the Written Address, all filed at the Registry of this Court.
“After hearing Sanusi Musa SAN, M. J. Numa SAN, Y. M. Zakari Esq., B. J. Tabai Esq., Tijanni Jimol Esq., and Miss M. C. Bekee Esq., Counsel for the Applicant, arguing the application and urging the Court to grant the reliefs sought.
“And the Court having delivered its Bench Ruling in open Court, its reasonings and conclusions are as contained in the body of the Bench Ruling. It is hereby ordered as follows: 1. An order of this Honourbale Court is made granting leave to the Plaintiff/Applicant to serve the 2nd – 4th Defendants/Respondents with the Originating Summons and all other accompanying processes in this Suit by substituted means, to wit: by serving same through the 1st Defendant (Clerk of the National Assembly) or pasting same on the premises of the National Assembly and publishing same in two national dailies.
“2. An Order of Interim Injuction of this Honourable Court is made restraining the 2nd Defendant/Defendant’s Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, headed by the 4th Defendant, from proceeding with the purported investigation against the Plaintiff/Applicant for alleged misconduct, sequel to the events that occurred at the plenary of the 2nd Defendant on the 20th day of February 2025, pursuant to the referral by the 2nd Defendant on the 25th of February 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.
“3. An order of this Honourable Court is made directing the 1st – 4th Defendants to show cause within 72 hours upon the service of this order on them, why an order of interlocutory injunction should not be granted against them, restraining them from proceeding with the purported investigation against the Plaintiff for alleged misconduct without affording her privileges as stipulated in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), the Senate Standing Order 2023, and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.”
Recall that controversy surrounding Akpoti-Uduaghan began on February 20, when she clashed with Senate President Godswill Akpabio over seat allocation. Senator Yemi Adaramodu, representing Ekiti South Senatorial District, raised a point of order during plenary, stating that the incident had tarnished the Senate’s image.
According to Adaramodu, attempts to clarify the Senate’s position have been unsuccessful, as the people already have their opinion on the incident based on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s action. He argued that the incident had brought the Senate to disrepute and urged the upper legislative chamber to take disciplinary action against the Kogi Central lawmaker.
Following Adaramodu’s presentation, the Senate referred Akpoti-Uduaghan to the ethics committee for disciplinary review. The upper legislative chamber took the decision during last Tuesday’s plenary, following the consideration and adoption of a report presented by Adaramodu. Senators unanimously approved that the matter be referred to the committee after it was put to a voice vote by Akpabio.
The Senate President asked the committee to review the incident and report to the Red Chamber. However, the court’s intervention has temporarily halted the disciplinary proceedings. The order has sparked debate, with some questioning the court’s jurisdiction over the Senate’s internal affairs.
Others have expressed support for Akpoti-Uduaghan, praising her for taking a stand against the Senate’s actions. The development has also raised questions about the limits of the Senate’s disciplinary powers and the role of the judiciary in protecting the rights of lawmakers.
The Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions is expected to respond to the court’s order, and it remains to be seen whether they will comply or challenge the decision. One thing is certain, however: the drama surrounding Akpoti-Uduaghan’s conduct is far from over.