TheCable
Search…
Search
The federal high court in Abuja has restrained the senate committee on ethics, privileges, and public petitions from conducting disciplinary proceedings against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
Obiora Egwuatu, the presiding judge, gave the order on Tuesday following an ex parte application filed by counsels to Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi central.
Akpoti-Uduaghan had been invited to appear before the senate’s disciplinary committee following an altercation with Senate President Godswill Akpabio on February 20.
Akpoti-Uduaghan had disrupted the plenary by rejecting her assigned seat, defying Akpabio’s order and repeatedly raising a point of order despite being overruled.
Subsequently, the senate referred Akpoti-Uduaghan to the committee on ethics, privileges, and public petitions for disciplinary review.
On February 28, in an interview on Arise TV, the Kogi senator alleged that her trouble in the senate began after she rejected sexual advances from the senate president.
The applicant’s counsel were listed as Sanusi Musa, M. J. Numa, Y. M. Zakari, B. J. Tabai, Tijanni Jimol, and M. C. Bekee.
The defendants in the application are clerk of the national assembly, the senate, senate president, and chairman of the senate committee on ethics.
According to the court document seen by TheCable, the Kogi senator prayed that the court grant an order restraining the senate and the ethics committee from “proceeding with the purported investigation” against her.
Akpoti-Uduaghan asked the court to grant an order “declaring that any action taken during the pendency of this suit is null, void and of no effect whatsoever”.
The Kogi senator also prayed for a court order allowing the defendants to be served with the originating summons and other related documents through substituted means.
“AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT granting an Interim Injunction 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 25th February, 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction,” a part of the application reads.
In his verdict, the presiding judge ruled that the defendants should come and show cause within 72 hours, upon the service of the order, why an interlocutory injunction should not be issued against them.
Egwuatu granted the prayer that the defendants should be served by substituted means.
The judge adjourned the case to March 10 for the defendants to show why the applicant’s reliefs should not be granted.
