By MONDAY O. UBANI, SAN

When I saw the recycled news from some bloggers and news outlets, I felt I need to offer a succinct and accurate clarification on the status of the pending legal matter between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and key officers of the National Assembly, currently before the Federal High Court, Abuja, and presided over by Hon. Justice Binta Nyako over her suspension matter.

At our last court appearance, the matter was fully heard, and judgment was reserved for the 27th of June 2025. This remains the true and correct position.

However, in light of ongoing media misinformation, especially orchestrated by blogs known for sensationalism and political manipulation, it is necessary to set the record straight regarding the interlocutory appeal and its withdrawal

Background to the Interlocutory Appeal

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan had filed a suit at the Federal High Court to challenge a summons by the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions regarding her unparliamentary conduct during plenary sometime in February this year. The matter was initially assigned to Hon. Justice Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Upon ex parte application, Justice Egwuatu granted wide-reaching interim orders. As the matter progressed, parties filed their respective processes. A key procedural disagreement emerged: Senator Natasha's lawyers insisted that all pending applications, including preliminary objections and the substantive originating summons, be heard together. Conversely, counsel representing the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate Committee on Ethics, and Senator Akpabio maintained that the preliminary objections should be heard and determined first.

Justice Egwuatu ruled that he would like to take all applications jointly. The legal team representing the Senate felt that the judge had exercised his discretion improperly, particularly in a politically sensitive matter like this one. They filed an interlocutory appeal challenging this procedural decision, seeking what is traditionally referred to as the ?trinity prayers?: leave for extension of time for leave to appeal, leave to appeal, and enlargement of time to file the notice of appeal. They also sought a stay of proceedings at the lower court.

Change of Judge and Redirection of the Case

While the appeal was pending, Justice Egwuatu took two major steps. First, he vacated the earlier ex parte order that was far-reaching. Second, he recused himself from the matter entirely.

The case was reassigned to Hon. Justice Binta Nyako. Her handling of the matter was both procedurally sound and legally strategic. She ruled that she would consider all applications collectively but would prioritize ruling on the preliminary objections and contempt application before turning to the substantive issues raised by Senator Natasha. This approach, being fair and judicious, was well received by the legal team representing the Senate.

On the appointed day, she heard all the applications and reserved judgment for the 27th of June, 2025.

Why the Appeal Became Academic

Given that all applications had now been heard and judgment reserved, the motion for leave to file interlocutory appeal filed against Justice Egwuatu?s ruling became moot. Continuing with it would have been legally unnecessary and tactically unwise. Justice Egwuatu is no longer handling the case, and so who will the legal team be appealing against? The legal team therefore filed a motion to withdraw the appeal. The motion was heard and granted. The Court of Appeal struck out the motion and awarded a routine cost of ?100,000 against the appellants.

Propaganda Masquerading as Legal Victory

Shockingly, over two weeks after the appeal was withdrawn, known propaganda blogs began circulating misleading reports, claiming that the withdrawal of the appeal amounted to a legal victory for Senator Natasha. This distortion of fact is both mischievous and insulting to the intelligence of the legal community.

Let the truth be told: no appeal was ?dismissed on its merits? as falsely portrayed. The motion was withdrawn by the appellants themselves because it had become irrelevant. That decision was rooted in sound legal judgment, not defeat. Pursuing a now-academic appeal would only waste judicial resources and make a mockery of the process.

A Pattern of Manipulation

This recent media spin is emblematic of Senator Natasha?s broader public relations strategy, an endless stream of press statements, online propaganda, and contrived narratives designed to keep her name trending. Whether through partisan bloggers or pseudo-journalists, the goal appears to be to paint herself as a persecuted hero, regardless of the actual legal substance.

This includes ludicrous and unsubstantiated allegations ranging from sexual harassment and assassination plots to organ harvesting and bribery. Yet, despite the gravity of these criminal claims, not a shred of credible evidence has been produced.

Conclusion: Law, Not Lies, Will Prevail

It is crucial to emphasize that courtrooms, not newsrooms or social media platforms, remain the appropriate venues for establishing truth through evidence. The sensationalism peddled by Natasha?s online proxies may win the battle of hashtags, but it will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

In the end, it is not noise but evidence that determines credibility. The courts will decide based on facts and law, not on manipulated headlines.

We remain confident in our legal position and trust the wisdom of the court to deliver justice in due course.

?Dr. Monday O. Ubani, SAN, is Legal Adviser to the President of the Senate.

Update news