Clarification: Abuja Federal High Court has not vacated its earlier order restraining the Senate’s Ethics Committee from trying Senator Natasha Uduaghan ...fixes Tuesday March 25 to address the contemptuous act

 

By Kayode Olopade 

Contrary to wide speculation making the rounds, Federal High Court, Abuja has clarified that it never vacated its earlier order restraining the Senate from subjecting Senator Natasha Uduaghan to investigation over the alleged sexual harassment against the Senate President Goodwill Akpabio.

Rather, the court did not consider the  Plaintiff’s application for mandatory injunction invoking its disciplinary jurisdiction but prioritised the motion of the Senate which was only filed on Monday the 17th day of March, 2025.

Our Judicial Correspondent gathered that whilst that order was subsisting the Senate brought an application.

Whilst the Senate inspite of the restraining order went ahead to sit and tried Natasha leading to the pronouncement of her six months suspension.

They equally filed an application  which was vehemently opposed by the Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Numa SAN, who emphasized the contemptuous actions of the Senate in defying the Court’s orders. 

He argued that the Senate was not entitled to any further orders from the same Court it had disrespected. 

After standing down the matter for a few hours the Judge

returned to deliver a ruling, offering clarification on the 

scope of Order 4.  And contrary to the interpretation sought by the 2nd Defendant (Senate)

that the order (restraining order)was meant to halt the entire legislative function of the Senate,  the Court noted that from the material before it that the National Assembly has been carrying out its legislative functions without an hindrance.

 The Court went further to clarify that owing to the varying 

interpretations of the order, it will set aside the consequential aspects of Order 

4 which was simply meant to give effect to the predicate orders.

Our correspondent further gathered that contrary to false reports circulating, the Court did not set aside Orders 1, 2, or 

3, which included orders restraining the Senate’s Ethics Committee from continuing with its investigation into the Plaintiff’s alleged conduct while the Motion for a Interlocutory injunction remained pending. 

Additionally, the Court did not reverse its directive for the Defendants to show cause within 72 hours or overturn the order to maintain the status quo ante bellum. 

The Court’s 

decision only involved the clarification of Order 4, due to the differing interpretations of it by the Defendants.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to March 25, 2025, for the hearing of all pending applications including the substantive dispute .