Natasha’s Lawyers Rewrite INEC Over Petition Seeking Senator’s Recall

The counsel to the suspended senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has written again to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), demanding that the petition seeking to recall his client be served through the J.S Okutepa SAN &Co with all supporting documents.

Naija News reports that Natasha’s lawyer made this known in a letter dated March 28, 2025, addressed to the INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu and signed by the Head of Litigation, J.S Okutepa SAN &Co., Adanu Emmanuel Ogwiji.

Ogwiji said the demand aligns with their client’s right to a fair hearing as enshrined in the constitution.

He said the counsel had written to the INEC chairman’s office on the 24th day of 2025 and made the same demand, but several days have passed since its communication to the office on the urgency of the matter.

Ogwiji reiterated that the INEC chairman caused the said petition and all attachments to be served within 24 hours from the date of the latest letter.

The letter reads, “Recall, that we had written to your office on the 24th day of March 2025 and 25th day of March 2025 demanding that our client be served through us, with the petition and all its supporting documents in line with our client’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in the constitution. Several days have passed since our communication to your office on the urgency of the matter.

“It is imperative to state, that in the case of Senator Dino Melaye & 7 Ors. Vs, Independent National Electoral Commission ‘rs i nre orted Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/S67/2017) in which the commission was the 1st Defendant, the Federal High Court per Hon. Justice (Dr.) Nnamdi O. Dimgba held thus at PP.6263: …It is important to stress the need for transparency in the conduct of public affairs, such as the subject matter of this litigation.

“It is when agencies as the 1st Defendant refuse to do simple things such as releasing petitions and the accompanying documents to the affected persons such as the 1st Plaintiff that breeds suspicions and creates negative impressions in the minds of the public and affected persons, when this could easily have been avoided.

“My view therefore is that for a recall process to proceed, the 1st Defendant should serve on the 1st Plaintiff a copy of the petition, together with all the documents accompanying it, all of which have been expressly referred to in the petition itself, Exhibit INEC1.

“For the avoidance of doubt, these documents include (a) The recall petition (b) Schedule of Signatures attached to the petition as referred to in it and (c) the full list of persons in support of the recall process, which was also referred to in the following language: “Find supplied in the accompanying jute bags, full list of everyone in support of this Recall Process”.“Pursuant to the position of the law stated above, we urge you most respectfully to comply with the request of our client, within 24 hours from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which we shall take it that, your commission has deliberately chosen to undermine the fundamental right of our client to be served the Petition said to have been received by your commission.

“We hope that your commission is not allowing itself to be used in sabotage not only of the fundamental right to fair hearing of our client, but again the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and all other relevant laws of the land. We therefore reiterate, that you cause the said Petition and all attachments to be served within 24 hours from the date of this letter. Please accept the assurances of our professional regards.”