By Hassanat Adebowale
Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has stepped down from hearing the case filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and others, citing allegations of bias as the reason for his withdrawal.
The suit, brought by Akpoti-Uduaghan, seeks to prevent the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from continuing disciplinary proceedings against her over alleged misconduct. Akpoti-Uduaghan represents Kogi Central Senatorial District in the National Assembly.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, Justice Egwuatu acknowledged concerns raised by Akpabio, who is named as the third defendant in the case. The Senate President had reportedly expressed doubts about the court’s neutrality, leading the judge to remit the case file to Chief Judge John Tsoho for reassignment.
This marks another legal turn in the dispute after Justice Egwuatu vacated an earlier order on March 4, which had declared Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension by the Senate null and void. The March 4 order had restrained the Senate and other defendants from taking any actions during the pendency of the suit.
On March 17, the Senate filed a motion to set aside one of the orders granted on March 4, arguing that it obstructed legislative duties. Represented by Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, the Senate stated, “The order offends the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution. This honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to restrain parliament from conducting its constitutional duties.”
Lawyers for Akpabio and Senator Neda Imasuem, who chairs the Ethics Committee, supported the Senate’s position, while Akpoti-Uduaghan’s counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, contested their arguments. Numa accused the defendants of disobeying court orders and described their actions as contemptuous.
Meanwhile, Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a contempt charge against the Senate, arguing that her suspension constitutes a deliberate violation of Justice Egwuatu’s March 4 ruling. She stated that the court’s interim injunction had been duly served on the defendants but disregarded.
The case has now been adjourned for reassignment, with further proceedings expected to address the legal and constitutional issues raised by both parties.
Under Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution, the National Assembly has the authority to manage its own affairs, including disciplining its members. At the same time, Section 6 grants the judiciary the power to review actions that may violate constitutional rights. The central question here is whether the courts can intervene in a Senate disciplinary process, or if such matters are solely within the Senate’s jurisdiction.
The Senate’s reported defiance of a court order raises the issue of contempt of court, which is a serious constitutional breach. If the judiciary is unable to enforce its rulings against the legislature, it risks setting a precedent that could weaken judicial authority. Conversely, if the courts overstep their role by intervening too deeply in legislative processes, it could undermine parliamentary privilege and the principle of separation of powers.
Previous decisions by the Supreme Court indicate that while the judiciary has the power to review legislative actions that infringe on constitutional rights, it must strike a careful balance. The courts must avoid encroaching on legitimate parliamentary functions. The outcome of this case could provide clarity on the limits of judicial intervention in legislative matters and help define the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com