Court Overturns Order Halting Senate From Suspending Senator Natasha

Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a recent ruling, set aside the suit after reviewing the arguments presented by both the plaintiff’s counsel and the lawyers representing the defendants.

On March 4, Justice Egwuatu granted five reliefs sought by Natasha, one of which, Order Number Four, invalidated any actions taken by the defendants during the pending litigation as null, void, and ineffective.

The judge had granted these five requests following a motion moved by Sanusi Musa, SAN, on behalf of Natasha, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.

Natasha, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, had filed the ex-parte motion against the clerk of the National Assembly and the Senate, named as the first and second defendants. She also included the President of the Senate and Senator Neda Imasuem, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, as the third and fourth defendants, respectively.

In her motion, the senator sought an interim injunction to prevent Senator Imasuem’s committee from continuing with an alleged investigation concerning her conduct stemming from events at the plenary on February 20. This investigation was referred by the Senate on February 25 and was to be halted pending the resolution of the motion for an interlocutory injunction.

However, the Senate, through its lawyer Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, filed a motion on notice on March 17, seeking to overturn Order Number Four issued by Justice Egwuatu in Natasha’s case.

Ojukwu argued that the order should be vacated to ensure fair hearing, citing Action 36(1) of the Constitution. He contended that Order Number Four was interlocutory and should not have been granted by the court.

He further claimed that the order lacked clarity and specificity, failing to define which parties it targeted or the actions it pertained to. Ojukwu maintained that the blanket nature of the order, which encompassed all actions of both the plaintiff and defendants, was legally untenable.

According to him, the law does not permit courts to issue vague orders. He stated that the ex-parte order was intended to last until the resolution of the suit, but noted that it effectively prohibits the Senate from carrying out its legislative responsibilities, as mandated by Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution. Ojukwu warned that enforcing such an order could lead to a constitutional crisis, disrupting the Senate’s operations entirely.

“The order violates the principle of separation of powers enshrined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution. This court cannot restrain Parliament from executing its constitutional duties,” he asserted.

Ojukwu urged the court to consider justice in their application, stating, “An interlocutory order affecting other parties should not be made until the case concludes.”

He alleged that the court had been misled into issuing the order, which he claimed contradicted Section 36(1) concerning fair hearing rights. He called for the entire proceedings from March 4, which led to the alleged breach, to be declared null and void.

The lawyer for the clerk, Charles Yoila, alongside Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, who represented Akpabio, and Umeh Kalu, SAN, who stood for Imasuem, aligned with Ojukwu’s argument.

In contrast, Natasha’s counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, refuted their claims. He described their position as a conspiracy by the defence.

“We submitted an affidavit containing 12 paragraphs on March 18, opposing the motion on notice, accompanied by six exhibits labelled Natasha 1 to Natasha 6D, documenting the events that transpired,” he stated.

Numa urged the court to dismiss the defence’s application and consider taking disciplinary action against them for alleged contempt of the valid court order, accusing the defendants of willfully disregarding the court’s directive..

While responding to Ojukwu’s argument, Numa asserted that “parties are bound by the prayers on the motion paper.”

He urged the court to disregard the application.

The lawyer contended that the court should evaluate all the orders in the ex-parte motion collectively, rather than in isolation.