Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court  in Abuja has stepped down from a case involving suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (PDP, Kogi Central).

Justice Egwuatu was assigned to hear the suit, but on Tuesday, he announced that he would no longer handle the matter.

He made this decision after Senate President Godswill Akpabio wrote a petition questioning the judge’s impartiality.

Although the case was scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, when the court clerk called the matter, the judge ruled that he was stepping aside.

He said he would return the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge.

Justice Egwuatu had on March 4, issued an interim ex-parte order, stopping the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from proceeding with disciplinary actions against Natasha .
She was accused of violating Senate rules.

The judge ruled that the disciplinary process should not continue until the case was decided.

He also gave the defendants 72 hours to explain why the court should not stop them from investigating the senator without following the rules laid out in the 1999 Constitution, the Senate Standing Order 2023, and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act.

Justice Egwuatu allowed the senator to serve legal documents on the defendants using substituted means.

The court ordered that the documents be given to the Clerk of the National Assembly or pasted at the National Assembly premises.

They were also to be published in two national newspapers.

The interim order came after the senator filed an an ex-parte application.

But  despite the court’s ruling, the Senate Committee still held its meeting and suspended Natasha for six months.

Later, after the defendants applied, Justice Egwuatu amended his earlier order.

He removed the part that prevented the Senate from taking any action while the case was ongoing.

Meanwhile, Akpabio’s legal team, led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), has written a petition against Justice Egwuatu, challenging the legality of  the court’s authority to interfere in Senate affairs.