Natasha Akpoti’s supporters: Restraining order against senate panel still in place

Some supporters of Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi central, have refuted speculations that a restraining order against the senate committee on ethics, privileges and public petitions has been vacated.

A restraining order was issued to the committee on March 4 after the female lawmaker was asked to appear before the senate panel.

Akpoti-Uduaghan had approached the court to halt a probe against her after a heated exchange with Senate President Godswill Akpabio over seats’ reallocation.

On Thursday, the senator’s supporters said the court had clarified that it never vacated the earlier order restraining the senate from subjecting the lawmaker to investigation over the alleged sexual harassment case against Akpabio.

The supporters, who described themselves as “Action Collective,” said the order was subsisting.

They said the court did not consider the plaintiff’s application for mandatory injunction invoking its disciplinary jurisdiction but prioritised the motion of the senate which was only filed on Monday.

“After standing down the matter for a few hours the judge returned to deliver a ruling, offering clarification on the scope of Order 4,” the statement signed by Onimisi Ibrahim reads.

“And contrary to the interpretation sought by the 2nd defendant (senate) that the order (restraining order) was meant to halt the entire legislative function of the senate, the court noted that from the material before the national assembly has been carrying out its legislative functions without hindrance.

“The Court went further to clarify that owing to the varying interpretations of the order, it will set aside the consequential aspects of Order 4 which was simply meant to give effect to the predicate orders.

“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 of it by the Defendants.

“The matter was subsequently adjourned to March 25, 2025, for the hearing of all pending applications including the substantive dispute.”