The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, has reassigned the suit filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan against the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and others to Justice Binta Nyako.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reliably gathered on Thursday that the suit's hearing has been fixed for Friday.
The case, which was earlier before Justice Obiora Egwuatu, will begin afresh (de Novo) before Justice Nyako.
The development followed Justice Egwuatu’s withdrawal from the matter after citing allegations of bias reportedly levelled against him by the senate president, who is the 3rd defendant in the matter.
On March 25, Justice Egwuatu withdrew from the suit filed by the suspended senator who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District to stop the Senate's investigation of her alleged misconduct.
The suit sought to stop the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings over alleged misconduct against the embattled lawmaker.
Justice Egwuatu announced his withdrawal from the case shortly after the case was called.
The judge said, “Justice is rooted in confidence in the court.
“Once a litigant expresses his belief that there is bias or likelihood of bias on the part of the judge, it will not be in the interest of justice for the judge to continue.
“One of the defendants in this matter has expressed such a belief in writing.
“In those circumstances, the honourable thing for the court to do is to desist from the conduct of the matter.
“Accordingly, I recuse myself from this matter.
“The case file is accordingly forwarded to my lord, the chief judge for further directive.”
Meanwhile, Justice Nyako will start hearing the suit on Friday.
NAN reports that Justice Egwuatu set aside order number four, which he granted on March 4, on March 19, declaring the Senate's suspension of Sen. Natasha null and void.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a ruling, vacated the order after listening to the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and lawyers to the defendants in the suit.
The Senate (2nd defendant) had filed a motion on notice to seek the order vacating the March 4 order, which declared any action taken by the defendants during the pendency of the suit as null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.
The judge granted Natasha’s five reliefs on March 4, including Order Number Four, which declared any action taken by the defendants during the pendency of the suit null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.
The judge granted the five prayers after Sanusi Musa, SAN, who appeared for Natasha, moved the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.
Natasha had, in the motion ex-parte, sued the clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) and the Senate as the first and second defendants.
She also named the President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Senator Neda Imasuem, who is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct, as the third and fourth defendants, respectively.
The senator had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the Senate’s committee headed by Imasuem from proceeding with the purported investigation against her for alleged misconduct related to the events that occurred at the plenary on Feb. 20, pursuant to the referral by the Senate on Feb. 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, among other things.
However, the Senate, in a motion on notice filed on March 17 by its lawyer, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, had sought an order setting aside Order Number Four in the enrolled ex-parte order made by Justice Egwuatu against the defendants in Natasha’s suit.
The Senate, through Ojukwu, urged the judge to vacate the order in the interest of a fair hearing.
The lawyer argued that the court's Order Number Four restrained the Senate from conducting any of its legislative duties in accordance with its constitutional functions.
Ojukwu said enforcing the order, as granted, would result in a constitutional crisis and anarchy, as the entire legislative duties of the Senate would grind to a halt.
Besides, he argued that the said order offended the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution.
Counsel who appeared for Natasha, Michael Numa, SAN, disagreed with their submissions.
He described their argument as a tactic of the defence.
The lawyer urged the court to dismiss the defence application and exercise its disciplinary powers on them for alleged contempt of the valid court order.
He argued that the defendants had, with audacity, disobeyed the order of the court.
While responding to Ojukwu's argument, Numa submitted that “parties are bound by the prayers on the motion paper.”
He urged the court to discountenance the application.
The lawyer argued that the court must consider the entire order in their ex-parte motion and not in piecemeal.
He said their argument was immaterial.
According to him, the Senate (2nd defendant) did not mention the propriety of Orders One, Two, Three, and Five made by this honourable court.
“The fact that Order Four was made is only an ancillary order to give effect to the motion that until the matter is dispensed with,” he said.
Numa described the defence's application as an affront to the court and said that the judge should set aside the orders they had not challenged.
He said the defendants had not even addressed the order directing them to show cause within 72 hours of the order's service.
“This is an invitation to anarchy my lord,” he said, citing previous cases to back his argument.
“Whatever reservation they have, their only duty is to come to court. The order was that the respondents come and show the course.
“Their application is self-defeating,” he argued.
NAN reports that in her contempt charge filed against the defendants, Natasha had argued that her suspension constituted wilful disobedience to the subsisting court order issued on March 4.
She stated that Justice Egwuatu's order of the interim injunction was duly served on the defendants on March 5.
According to Form 48 issued by the chief registrar, the defendants/contemnors “deliberately and contumaciously disregarded” the binding directive of the court and “proceeded with acts in flagrant defiance of the authority of the court.”