Politics
Court did not lift senate probe ban on Natasha —Group Clarifies
A pressure group, Action Collective, has urged Nigerians to disregard rumors that the Federal High Court has lifted its order restraining the Senate from probing Senator Natasha Uduaghan over allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Goodwill Akpabio.
In a statement signed on Thursday by Dr. Onimisi Ibrahim, the Kogi-based group reaffirmed that the court order remains in effect. According to them, instead of vacating it, the court provided further clarification on the case.
They explained that the court had not yet considered Senator Uduaghan’s request for a mandatory injunction but had instead addressed a motion filed by the Senate on March 17, 2025.
The group noted that in spite of the restraining order, the Senate proceeded with its investigation and ultimately pronounced a six-month suspension on Senator Natasha.
“They equally filed an application, which was vehemently opposed by the Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Numa, SAN, who emphasized the Senate’s contemptuous actions in defying the Court’s orders.
“Numa 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. Contrary to the interpretation sought by the 2nd Defendant (the Senate), that the restraining order was meant to halt the entire legislative function of the Senate, the Court noted that the National Assembly had been carrying out its legislative functions without any hindrance.
“The Court further clarified that, owing to the varying interpretations of the order, it would set aside only the consequential aspects of Order 4, which was merely meant to give effect to the predicate orders.”
The group declared that contrary to false reports, “The Court did not set aside Orders 1, 2, or 3, which include the orders restraining the Senate’s Ethics Committee from continuing its investigation into the Plaintiff’s alleged conduct while the Motion for an Interlocutory Injunction remains 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 presented by the Defendants.
“The matter was subsequently adjourned to March 25, 2025, for the hearing of all pending applications, including the substantive dispute.
“We use this medium to assure the general public that justice shall prevail, even as we urge everyone to disregard the misinformation in circulation,” the group clarified.
