Natasha quadruples down on Akpabio, Senate adamant, rallies round him
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (PDP, Kogi Central) has filed a contempt suit against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and others over her six months’ suspension, marking her fourth line of pushback against what she describes as injustice.
First, she already has in court a case against Akpabio for allegedly defaming her in a Facebook post after she voiced out his alleged sexual harassment on Arise Television in late February.
Second, she last week put her allegations in a written petition to the Senate to investigate the alleged shenanigans. She has promised to re-represent the petition at the Senate on the day she resumes from suspension.
Third, Natasha this week escalated the case to the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) at the United Nations in New York.
Fourth, now she circled back to court with a contempt suit against Akpabio and his alleged Senate accomplices.
The Form 48 contempt charge was filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday. Others listed as co-defendants include the Clerk of the National Assembly (CAN) and Senate Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct Committee Chairman Neda Imasuen.
Judge Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja on March 4 restrained the committee from proceeding with investigation against Natasha pending the determination of a substantive suit over alleged misconduct at Senate plenary on February 20 and subsequent referral on February 25.
Regardless, the same committee suspended her on March 6.
A team of Natasha’s lawyers led by Michael Numa SAN, argued for and obtained the court order to remain in effect pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction.
The court also
- Issued an order directing the defendants to show cause why an interlocutory injunction should not be granted to restrain them from proceeding with the purported investigation against Natasha for alleged misconduct.
- Declared that “any action taken during the pendency of the suit is null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.”
However, just two days after the court ruling, the Senate proceeded to suspend Natasha for six months.
In response to the ruling, Akpabio – who presided over the matter at Senate plenary – contested the power of the court to interfere in the internal affairs of the legislature, insisting that the court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in Senate matters.
But in her contempt charge, Akpoti-Uduaghan argued that her suspension constituted wilful disobedience to the court order issued on March 4, as an enrolled order of the interim injunction was duly served on the defendants on March 5.
Her Form 48 argued that 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.”
The court, in a notice of disobedience of a court order signed by its Registrar pursuant to Section 72 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act 2004, informed the defendants/contemnors of their wilful disobedience to the court order issued by Egwuatu.
It warned that defying the subsisting order rendered Akpabio, Imasuen, and the CNA liable for contempt of court which could result in their committal to prison.
However, on Thursday, the Senate passed a vote of confidence in the leadership of Akpabio.
During the session, Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele said: “Up until the day we announced on this floor that we were referring a petition brought by Senator Yemi Adaramodu, with respect to Senator Natasha’s flagrant disobedience to the rules and regulations of this Senate and was referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, none of us was ever told about any sexual harassment.
“Secondly, I want to make it clear to the public that the issue before us, as of the time we referred this matter to the Ethics and Privileges Committee had nothing to do with sexual harassment.”
Bamidele explained that those condemning Akpabio for being a judge in his own case need to understand that the matter before the Senate and on which Akpabio presided over as president had to do with the motion referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petition.
“While we appreciate the concern of the public on this matter, I just want to emphasise that it is important we seek the understanding of the general public that we were elected to serve the people and whatever we do in this Chamber, we are guided by rules drawn pursuant to the Constitution of our country.
“It is not a rule of men, it is a rule of law. It is not about some men trying to gang up against a woman or anybody, it is about ensuring that our rules are respected. That is the only way we can guarantee peace, law and order.
“It is very clear in our rules as to how far we can go and we are not of the opinion that we are in breach of either the Constitution or any of our rules. Section 60 of the Nigerian Constitution confers on this Parliament the constitutional rights to regulate its own procedure.
“Suspension, as far as we are concerned, is the only authority to the kind of anarchy that the nation witnessed in the past, where members of parliament had reasons to shout, to get physically engaged with each other, to engage in acts of violence, to tear each other’s clothes and do all kinds of things.
“Thank God we are moving away from that now. It shows that democracy is growing, nascent as it might appear to be. If people have issues with whether or not we can even suspend an erring legislator who has refused, or who is refusing to work within the rules, as I said, it’s for the court to continue to adjudicate.”
But the courts and senior lawyers, including human rights fighter Femi Falana, have stressed that the Constitution does not permit the legislature to suspend any member.
Falana in particular listed several cases in which both the High Court and the Appeal Court nullified the suspension of lawmakers.
According to the lawyers, in one instance, the Appeal Court ruled that if the Senate must suspend any member at all, the period should not be longer than 14 days stated in the Senate rules.
Read also:
