The Federal High Court in Abuja has barred Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senate President, God’swill Akpabio and Senate from granting press, TV interviews and social media posts regarding the  pending case on the suspension of the female lawmaker until the matter is decided.

Justice Binta Nyako declared this in her ruling on Friday, while restraining the parties and their lawyers.

Ekwutosblog previously reported that Justice Obiora Egwuatu, had withdrawn from Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s pending suit, which challenges her suspension by the Senate over allegations of misconduct, based on allegations of bias by one of those sued by her.

The Chief Judge John Tsoho eventually reassigned the matter to Justice Binta Nyako.

Nairametrics previously reported that Akpoti-Uduaghan had filed a motion ex parte, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025, suing the Clerk of the National Assembly (NASS), the Senate, the Senate President, and Senator Neda Imasuem, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct.

The lawmaker sought an “order of interim injunction restraining the Senate’s committee, chaired by Imasuem, from proceeding with the purported investigation against her for alleged misconduct, which stemmed from events that occurred during plenary on February 20 and were referred by the Senate on February 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction.”  

Ekwutosblog previously reported that amid the pending case, the Nigerian Senate went ahead to suspend Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for six months, effective March 6, 2025, citing violations of Senate rules.

Justice Egwuatu later announced his withdrawal from the case, citing allegations of bias levelled against the court by one of the defendants.

The judge said that justice is rooted in confidence in the court and that 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.

What transpired in court  

At the resumed hearing on Friday, J.S. Okutepa SAN, counsel  for Akpoti, said that his case was urgent given that the suspension of his client which he is complaining of is for six months.

He called for streamlining of all processes and that the matter be resolved expeditiously.

• The court, Charles Iyoila, counsel for Clerk of National Assembly,  Chikaosolu Ojukwu SAN for Senate, Kehinde Ogunwumiju SAN, counsel for Godswill Akpabio and Umeh Kalu SAN for fourth defendant, Senate Committee chair, agreed to expedite the proceedings alongside Okutepa.
• However, Kehinde Ogunwumiju said that motions for injunctions has to be attended to  urgently because, according to him, Natasha has been granting interviews on BBC and CNN and other media houses which he believes are prejudicial to the course of justice.
• Okutepa faulted the line of submission of Ogunwumiju, saying there is also a  Senator (from the South East) who has been appearing on TV and speaking on the issue.

Okutepa insisted that the court’s orders should include all privies and any member of the Senate.

“They should maintain decorum,” he said.

What the judge said 

Ruling on the application, Justice Binta said there should be “no press interviews by parties and counsel as regards the subject matter of this case.” 

“No streaming or social media posts as regards this case by any of the parties and counsel.  

“No TV interviews analyzing the subject matter of this case while the case is subjudice,” she ruled.

She equally directed the parties to ensure  “total media blockade” on this case until this matter is decided.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter to May 12, 2025 for hearing.

Backstory  

The altercation between Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan and Senate President Akpabio became widely publicized after she was asked to change her seat during plenary.

On February 28, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan accused Akpabio of making inappropriate advances toward her during a visit to his home in December 2023.

Her suspension has sparked mixed reactions within the political landscape.

While some lawmakers and analysts view the decision as a necessary enforcement of legislative discipline, others argue that the penalties are excessive and could set a dangerous precedent for stifling dissent within the Senate.