Set the direct record or …- Theconclaveng

When I saw the news recycled by some bloggers and news, I felt I needed to offer a succinct and accurate clarification on the state of the outstanding legal question between Senator Natasha Akpoti-Usaghan and the key officers of the National Assembly, currently in front of the Federal High Court, Abuja and chaired by the Hon. Justice Binta Nyako on his question of suspension.

At our last appearance in court, the issue was completely listened to and the sentence was reserved for June 27, 2025. This remains the real and correct position.

However, in light of the disinformation of the media in progress, above all orchestrated by blogs known for sensationalism and political manipulation, it is necessary to establish the record regarding the interlocutory appeal and its retreat

■》 background for the interlocutory appeal

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Auduaghan had filed a cause at the High Federal Court to challenge a convocation of the Ethics Committee, the Senate’s privileges and public petitions regarding his non-partial conduct during the plenary in February of this year. The issue was initially assigned to the Hon. Justice Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

In the event of a former part question, the Justice Egwuatu has granted temporary orders of large flow rate. As the question proceeded, the parties presented their respective processes. A key procedural disagreement emerged: Senator Natasha lawyers insisted on the fact that all outstanding applications, including preliminary objections and evocations of substantial origin, are listened to together. On the contrary, the consultants representing the employee of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate Ethics Committee and Senator Akpabio have argued that preliminary objections should be listened to and determined first.

Judge Egwuatu established that he would have liked to take all the applications jointly. The legal team that represents the Senate believed that the judge had exercised his discretion improperly, in particular in a politically sensitive question like this. They presented an interlocutory appeal by challenging this procedural decision, looking for what is traditionally indicated as “prayers of the Trinity”: leave for the extension of the time for the use permit, leave on appeal and expansion of the time to present the notice of appeal. They also looked for a stay of proceedings at the lower court.

■》 Change of judge and redirection of the case

While the appeal was pending, the judge Egwuatu took two main steps. Firstly, he left the previous order former part who was of a large course. Secondly, he completely retired from the matter.

The case was reassured to the Hon. Justice Binta Nyako. His management of the issue was both procedurally solid and legally strategic. He established that he would consider all applications collectively, but would have given priority to the sentence on preliminary objections and on the application of contempt before moving on to the substantial issues raised by Senator Natasha. This approach, being right and judicious, was well accepted by the legal team that represents the Senate.

The established day listened to all the questions and the judgment reserved for June 27, 2025.

■》 because the appeal has become academic

Since all the applications had been heard and the reserved judgment, the motion of leave to submit an interlocutory appeal filed against the Egwuatu sentence has become questionable. Continue with it would have been legally useless and tactically not very wise. Judge Egwuatu no longer manages the case, and therefore for whom will the legal team be? The legal team then presented a motion to collect the appeal. The motion was listened to and granted. The Court of Appeal has eliminated the motion and assigned a ₦ 100,000 routine cost against the applicants.

■》 Propaganda masked by legal victory

Incredibly, over two weeks after the appeal has been withdrawn, the well -known propaganda blogs began to circulate misleading relationships, claiming that the withdrawal of the appeal was equivalent to a legal victory for Senator Natasha. This distortion of facts is both mischievous and offensive for the intelligence of the legal community.

Let the truth be saying: no appeal was “rejected for its merits” as falsely interpreted. The motion was withdrawn by the applicants themselves because it had become irrelevant. This decision was rooted in the good legal judgment, not in defeat. Pursuant to an academic appeal would waste only judicial resources and mocked the trial.

■》 a manipulation model

This recent round of the media is emblematic of the wider public relations strategy of Senator Natasha, an infinite flow of press declarations, online propaganda and invented narratives designed to maintain its trendy name. Whether through partisan or pseudo-player bloggers, the goal seems to be to paint as a persecuted hero, regardless of the current legal substance.

This includes ridiculous accusations without foundation ranging from sexual harassment and assassination plots to the collection and corruption of organs. However, despite the seriousness of these criminal statements, a chest of credible tests was not produced.

■》 Conclusion: the law, not the lies, will prevail

It is essential to underline that the courts, not the editorial offices or social media platforms, remain the appropriate places to establish the truth through evidence. Sensationalism passed off from Natasha’s online proxy can win the battle of Hashtag, but will not surrender proof of judicial control.

In the end, it is not noise but proves that it determines credibility. The courts will decide on the basis of the facts and the law, not to manipulated securities.

We remain confident in our legal position and trust the wisdom of the Court to deliver debt time justice.

Thanks, sir.

■》 Dr. Monday O. Ubani, San
Legal consultant of the President of the Senate

Related