Court Stops Senate From Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings Against Senator Natasha

Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, to stop disciplinary proceedings against Kogi East Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

Justice Egwuatu gave the order on Tuesday following an ex-parte application filed by counsels to Akpoti-Uduaghan.

Recall that Akpoti-Uduaghan had been invited to appear before the Senate’s disciplinary committee this Wednesday 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.

RELATED: Senate Rejects Live Coverage As Natasha Appears Before Panel Wednesday

Subsequently, the Senate referred Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions for disciplinary review.

Also, on February 28, in an interview on Arise News Channel, the Kogi Central 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 were the Clerk to the National Assembly, the Senate, Senate President, and chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions.

According to the document seen by our Correspondent, 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.