The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has declared that henceforth it would not proceed with actions on the petition seeking the recall of the lawmaker representing the Kogi Central Senatorial District, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.
According to the Commission, the petition failed to meet the number of signatures required by the constitution.
In a statement Thursday by the National Commissioner and Chairman Information and Voter Education Committee, Sam Olumekun, INEC stated that a review of the signatures submitted by the petitioners revealed only 208,132 valid signatures or thumbprints.
The statement noted that the figure voters in the senatorial district, falling short of the constitutional requirement of more than half.
Quoting Section 69(a) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, INEC said a recall petition needed the support of more than one-half of the registered voters in the constituency.
Also, a public notice published by the Commission and signed by its secretary, Mrs Rose Oriaran-Anthony said the petition to recall the lawmaker fell short of meeting the constitutional requirements.
The full statement read, “The Commission held its regular weekly meeting today, Thursday 3rd April 2025. Among other issues, the meeting considered and approved the report of its physical count of the signatures/thumbprints forwarded with the petition for the recall of the Senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, in line with Clause 2(b) of the Regulations and Guidelines for Recall 2024.
“The Commission had assured Nigerians that it would handle the matter with fairness to the parties involved and in line with the provisions of the law and our Regulations and Guidelines.
“First, we ensured that the petitioners complied with the requirements for the submission of the petition. Secondly, we notified the member sought to be recalled in writing, copied the presiding officer of the Senate and simultaneously published the notice on our website.
“Thirdly, we informed Nigerians that the next step would be to carefully ascertain the number of signatures/thumbprints to ensure that the petition complies with the requirement of the law. This exercise has now been completed.
“For emphasis, a petition for the recall of a Senator must comply with the provision of Section 69 (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which requires the signatures of more than one-half of the registered voters in the constituency.
“The total number of registered voters in the Kogi Central Senatorial District is 474,554. More than one-half of this figure (i.e. 50%+1) is 237,277+1 which is at least 237,278 voters.
“Across the 902 polling units in 57 Registration Areas and five Local Government Areas that make up the Senatorial District, the Commission ascertained 208,132 signatures/thumbprints from the submission made by the petitioners. This translates to 43.86% of the registered voters which falls short of the constitutional requirement by 29,146 signatories.
“Consequently, the petition has not met the requirement of Section 69(a) of the Constitution. Therefore, no further action shall be taken on the recall of the Senator.
“In line with the provision of Clause 2(d) of the Regulations and Guidelines for Recall 2024, the Commission has issued a Public Notice to that effect which is also copied to the presiding officer of the Senate.
“The public notice, along with a summary of the review of the signatures/thumbprints of the petitioners, which are disaggregated by Local Government Areas, are available on our website and social media platforms for public information.”
… Suit re-assigned
Meanwhile, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, has reassigned the suit filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan against President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio and others, to Justice Binta Nyako, who is expected to start hearing in the suit afresh.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reliably gathered Thursday that the hearing of the suit was fixed for Friday.
The case, which was earlier before Justice Obiora Egwuatu, will begin afresh (de Novo) before Justice Nyako.
…Egwuatu’s withdrawal
The development followed Justice Egwuatu’s withdrawal from the matter after citing allegations of bias reportedly levelled against him by the senate president, who is the 3rd defendant in the matter.
Justice Egwuatu had, on March 25, withdrawn from the suit filed by the suspended senator, to stop her investigation by the Senate over alleged misconduct.
The suit had sought to stop the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions from going ahead with the disciplinary proceedings over alleged misconduct against the embattled lawmaker.
Justice Egwuatu announced his withdrawal from the case shortly after the case was called.
The judge said: “Justice is rooted in confidence in the court.
“Once a litigant expresses his belief that there is bias or likelihood of bias on the part of the judge, it will not be in the interest of justice for the judge to continue.
“One of the defendants in this matter has expressed such belief in writing. In that circumstances, the honourable thing for the court to do is to desist from the conduct of the matter.
“Accordingly, I recue myself from this matter. The case file is accordingly forwarded to my lord, the chief judge for further directive.”
…Before the withdrawal
NAN reports that Justice Egwuatu had, on March 19, set aside order number four which he granted on March 4, declaring the suspension of Sen. Natasha by the Senate as null and void.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in a ruling, vacated the order after listening to the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and lawyers to the defendants in the suit.
The Senate (2nd defendant) had filed a motion on notice to seek for the order vacating the March 4 order which declared any action taken by the defendants during the pendency of the suit as null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
The judge had granted Natasha’s five reliefs on March 4, including Order Number Four which declared any action taken by the defendants during the pendency of the suit as null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
The judge granted the five prayers after Sanusi Musa, SAN, who appeared for Natasha, moved the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.
Natasha had, in the motion ex-parte, sued the clerk of the National Assembly (NASS) and the Senate as 1st and 2nd defendants.
She also named the President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Senator Neda Imasuem, who is the Chairman, Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Code of Conduct as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively.
The senator had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the Senate’s committee headed by Imasuem from proceeding with the purported investigation against her for alleged misconduct sequel to the events that occurred at the plenary on Feb. 20, pursuant to the referral by the Senate on Feb. 25, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, among others.
…Senate’s defence
However, the Senate, in a motion on notice filed on March 17 by its lawyer, Chikaosolu Ojukwu, SAN, had sought an order setting aside Order Number Four in the enrolled ex-parte order made by Justice Egwuatu against the defendants in Natasha’s suit.
The Senate, through Ojukwu, urged the judge to vacate the order in the interest of fair hearing.
The lawyer had argued that the Order Number Four granted by the court restrained the Senate from conducting any of its legislative duties in accordance with its constitutional functions.
Ojukwu said enforcing the said order, as granted, would result in a constitutional crisis and anarchy, as the entire legislative duties of the Senate would be made to grind to a halt.
Besides, he argued that the said order offended the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution.
The counsel who appeared for Natasha, Michael Numa, SAN, disagreed with their submissions.
He described their argument as the conspiracy of the defence.
The lawyer urged the court to dismiss the defence application and exercise its disciplinary powers on them for alleged contempt of the valid court order.
He argued that the defendants had, with audacity, disobeyed the order of the court.
While responding to the argument of Ojukwu, Numa submitted that “parties are bound by the prayers on urged the court to discountenance the application.
The lawyer argued that the court must consider the entire orders in their ex-parte motion and not in piecemeal, saying their argument was imm fact that Order Four was made is only an ancillary order to give effect to the motion until the matter is dispensed with,” he said.
Numa said the defendants had not even addressed the order directing them to show cause within 72 hours upon the service of the order.
“This is an invitation to anarchy my lord,” he said, citing previous cases to back his argument.
“Whatever reservation they have, their only duty is to come to court. The order was for the respondents to come and show the course. Their application is self-defeating,” he argued. (NAN)