Justice Binta Nyako has announced date to deliver verdict on Natasha’s suspension from the senate.
NewsOnline Nigeria reports that Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja has set June 27 to give a final judgment in the case filed by suspended Kogi Central senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
This Nigeria news platform understands that Akpoti-Uduaghan is challenging her suspension from the Senate.
She took the matter to court after the Senate, led by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, suspended her over claims of misconduct.
ALSO: EFCC Arrests Lagos-Based Socialite, Fred Ajudua Over $1.43m Fraud
She believed the action was unfair and influenced by bias.
In her case, she included the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate President, and Senator Neda Imasuem, who chairs the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct, as the defendants.
The case was originally handled by Justice Obiorah Egwuatu, but he stepped down, and it was reassigned to Justice Binta Nyako.
When the case came up on Monday, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Jibrin Okutekpa, told the court that they had submitted all the documents they planned to use, as the court had earlier directed.
Lawyers for the Senate and the Senate President, Paul Daudu and Ekwo Ejembi, also said they had filed their documents.
However, they pointed out that Akpoti-Uduaghan had gone against a court order.
They accused her of disobeying the court by posting a satirical apology to the Senate President on her Facebook page on March 27 and publishing it in some newspapers.
“The plaintiff had responded to our motion,” the lawyers said, referring to the steps she took after being accused of contempt.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s other lawyer, Michael Numan, said they had received the motion accusing her of disobeying the court.
He also reminded the judge that they had filed a similar motion earlier, accusing the defendants of disobeying the court.
He said, “The alleged statement credited to the plaintiff had no connection with her,” and insisted that “the alleged contemptuous statement had no nexus with the plaintiff.”
