Court Bars Natasha, Akpabio, Others From Media Interviews

The Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja on Friday, barred Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan; the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and others from granting media interviews while the suit filed by Natasha is still pending before the court.

The new judge, Justice Binta Nyako, gave the order during the hearing of the suit filed by the suspended senator to stop the Senate from investigating her.

Justice Nyako ordered that no party or counsel in the suit should grant media interviews pending the hearing and determination of the case.

“There should be no press interview. by all parties and counsel as regards the subject matter of this case; no streaming or social media post as regards this case.

“There should be no TV interviews as regards this. There should be total media blockage,” the judge held.

The Chief Judge of Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, reassigned the case to Justice Nyako following Justice Obiora Egwuatu’s withdrawal from the matter after citing allegations of bias reportedly leveled against him by the senate president, who is the 3rd defendant in the matter.

Natasha had, in the motion ex-parte, sued the clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) and the Senate as 1st and 2nd defendants.

She also named the President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Sen. Neda Imasuem, who is the Chairman, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively. Recipe book

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 sequel to the events that occurred at the plenary on Feb. 20, under the referral by the Senate on Feb. 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, among others.

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 had argued that Order Number Four granted by the court restrained the Senate from conducting any of its legislative duties in accordance with its constitutional functions.

Ojukwu said enforcing the said order, as granted, would result in a constitutional crisis and anarchy, as the entire legislative duties of the Senate would be made to 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 the conspiracy 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 the argument of Ojukwu, Numa submitted that “parties are bound by the prayers on the motion paper.”

He urged the court to discount the application.

The lawyer argued that the court must consider the entire orders in their ex-parte motion and not in piecemeal.

He said their argument was immaterial.

He argued that the defendants had, with audacity, disobeyed the order of the court.

While responding to the argument of Ojukwu, Numa submitted that “parties are bound by the prayers on the motion paper.”

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 an enrolled order of the interim injunction issued by Justice Egwuatu 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.”