A Federal High Court judge in Abuja, Justice Obiora Egwuatu, has withdrawn from the lawsuit filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and others. The case challenges the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions over disciplinary proceedings initiated against the senator for alleged misconduct.
The judge announced his decision to step aside on Tuesday, citing allegations of bias raised by Akpabio, the third defendant in the case. When the matter was called, Justice Egwuatu acknowledged the presence of legal representatives before declaring his withdrawal. He stressed that the claims of partiality influenced his decision.
It emerged that Akpabio had expressed doubts about the court’s ability to handle the case fairly. In response, Justice Egwuatu ordered the case file to be forwarded to the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, for reassignment to another judge. His withdrawal follows a series of legal battles surrounding Natasha’s suspension by the Senate.
On March 4, the court granted Natasha five reliefs, including an order declaring any action taken against her during the case’s pendency as null and void. The ruling came after an ex-parte motion filed by her lawyer, Sanusi Musa, SAN, seeking interim protection against the Senate’s disciplinary proceedings.
However, on March 19, Justice Egwuatu vacated the order after hearing arguments from both parties. The Senate, represented by lawyer Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, had filed a motion urging the court to set aside the ruling. Ojukwu argued that the order interfered with the legislative process and breached the separation of powers.
READ ALSO: Court lifts ban on INEC’s recall petition against Senator Natasha
The Senate maintained that restricting its committee from investigating Natasha could lead to a constitutional crisis. Ojukwu stressed that the order restrained the National Assembly from performing its constitutional duties. Other defence lawyers, representing the Senate Clerk, Akpabio, and the Senate Committee Chairman, aligned with his argument.
Natasha’s counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, opposed the defence’s request, dismissing it as a deliberate attempt to undermine the court’s authority. He accused the defendants of conspiring to disobey a valid court order and urged the judge to reject their arguments. He insisted that the Senate’s application was an attempt to create anarchy.
In her contempt charge, Natasha argued that her suspension violated the subsisting court order issued on March 4. She emphasized that the enrolled order of interim injunction had been served on the defendants on March 5. Despite this, they allegedly disregarded the directive and proceeded with disciplinary actions.
Court filings indicated that the defendants “deliberately and contumaciously disregarded” the court’s authority. Natasha’s legal team maintained that their actions constituted willful disobedience and contempt of court. The senator’s legal representatives urged the court to sanction those responsible.
As the case awaits reassignment, legal analysts suggest that the unfolding events highlight tensions between the judiciary and the legislature. Observers anticipate that the next judge assigned to the case will face renewed arguments over the legality of the Senate’s actions.
NAN
