N’Assembly Rejects Demand for Legal Fees in Akpabio/Natasha Suit

*Says senate president’s office, not clerk, engaged law firm

*Declines liability, asks lawyers to seek payment from issuing office

Sunday Aborisade in Abuja

The National Assembly has formally rejected a demand for the payment of professional legal fees by the law firm of Ojukwu Chikaosolu & Co. over its representation in the legal dispute involving the Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, insisting that the Office of the Clerk to the National Assembly neither engaged nor authorised the firm to act on its behalf.

The legislature in the communication obtained by THISDAY in Abuja on Wednesday, maintained that the law firm was instructed by the Office of the President of the Senate and not by the Office of the Clerk, which, according to it, is the recognised administrative channel for engaging external solicitors to represent the National Assembly.

The position was conveyed in a pre-action response dated July 20, 2026, issued by the Directorate of Legal Services on behalf of the Clerk to the National Assembly and addressed to Ojukwu Chikaosolu & Co., following the firm’s demand for payment of professional fees allegedly incurred while representing the Senate in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 involving Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk to the National Assembly and other parties.

However, the development has triggered a sharp reaction from the lead counsel in the matter, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Chikaosolu Ojukwu, who accused the Clerk to the National Assembly and the Director of Legal Services of undermining the authority of Senate President Godswill Akpabio by disclaiming responsibility for the legal brief.

Ojukwu, who represented the Senate President and the Senate in the highly publicised legal battle arising from Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension, in a telephone interview with THISDAY, called on both officials to resign, describing their conduct as an act of insubordination against the Senate President, whom he said personally authorised his firm’s engagement.

In its response to the firm’s demand, the National Assembly said it carefully reviewed the request and accompanying documents but found no contractual or administrative relationship between the Office of the Clerk and the law firm.

The letter, signed by Principal Legislative Counsel, Obi Chidinma, for the Clerk to the National Assembly, stated: “The Directorate of Legal Services of the National Assembly, acting on behalf of the Clerk to the National Assembly, did not issue any letter of engagement or instruction retaining your firm to represent the Senate in the above-mentioned matter.”

It explained that under the National Assembly’s administrative procedure, the engagement of external solicitors for legal representation on behalf of the institution is processed through the Directorate of Legal Services under the authority of the Clerk to the National Assembly.

The legislature further referred to a “Letter of Instruction” dated March 14, 2025, which was attached to the firm’s demand for payment.

According to the response, the document originated from the Office of the President of the Senate and was signed by the Chief of Staff to the Senate President rather than by the Office of the Clerk.

The letter read: “It was neither issued nor authorised by the Office of the Clerk to the National Assembly. On that basis, the National Assembly declined liability for the professional fees being claimed.

“In the circumstances, the Office of the Clerk to the National Assembly is unable to accept liability for the professional fees claimed, there being no contractual or administrative relationship between your firm and the Office of the Clerk to the National Assembly in respect of the said engagement.”

The legislature consequently advised the law firm that if it believed any financial obligation existed pursuant to the alleged letter of instruction, it should direct its demand to the office from which the instruction originated.

The correspondence was issued in response to a pre-action notice served on the National Assembly by the law firm under the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017, the Constitution and other applicable laws.

But reacting to the National Assembly’s position in an interview with THISDAY, Ojukwu insisted that his firm’s engagement by the Senate President was lawful and sufficient.

He argued that the Clerk ought to have taken up any procedural concerns internally with the Senate President instead of writing directly to his chambers.

According to the senior advocate, “The explanation from the Clerk’s office is that any law firm representing the National Assembly in court should be engaged through the Department of Legal Services and processed by the Clerk’s office.

“My reaction is straightforward: the Clerk of the National Assembly should resign. I am calling on him to resign.”

Ojukwu argued that by issuing the disclaimer, the Clerk and the Director of Legal Services projected themselves as possessing superior authority over the Senate President on matters relating to legal representation of the legislature.

“By issuing that letter, the Clerk and the Director of Legal Services have acted as though they are the ultimate authority on legal representation. In doing so, they have shown disrespect to the authority of the Senate President,” he said.

He disclosed that the Senate President personally instructed his law firm to represent the Senate and that any disagreement over internal administrative procedures ought to have been resolved within the National Assembly hierarchy.

Ojukwu said, “The Senate President personally wrote to us, directing us to represent the Senate. That is their internal administrative process.

“Our initial correspondence was with the Senate President. He requested further clarification, and we provided the necessary explanation.

“If the Clerk had any concerns, he should have taken the matter up with the Senate President instead of writing directly to us in that manner.”

According to him, even if the Clerk believed that established administrative procedures had not been followed, institutional protocol required consultation with the Senate President before communicating with the law firm.

“Whether he believes he is right or not, he ought to have consulted the Senate President first. By issuing that letter, he committed an act of insubordination against the Senate President. He should not have written to us in that manner,” Ojukwu said.

The SAN also questioned why the Clerk did not object to his firm’s appearance throughout the proceedings if there had indeed been concerns over its mandate.

The learned Silk added: “We carried out the assignment. Throughout the highly publicised Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan case, everyone knew we were representing the Senate.

“If there was any objection, why didn’t the Clerk ask who briefed us or direct us to stop representing the Senate?

“We secured a judgment at the Court of Appeal in favour of the Senate, yet he is now writing this kind of letter.”

Escalating his criticism, Ojukwu alleged that the actions of the Clerk and the Director of Legal Services undermined the authority of the Chairman of the National Assembly.

He said, “Let me make my position clear: his actions amount to insubordination and sabotage against the Chairman of the National Assembly.

“By writing that letter to us, he has questioned the authority of Senator Godswill Akpabio, GCON, as Chairman of the National Assembly. Please quote me correctly on that,” an obviously furious Ojukwu stated.

Asked about his next line of action, Ojukwu said his chambers would pursue all lawful options available while expressing confidence that the Senate President would also respond to the development.

“We will take all legal steps available to us. I am also confident that the Senate President will respond appropriately to the Clerk’s letter,” he said.

He maintained that the central issue was not whether the Senate President authorised the engagement but whether the Director of Legal Services could claim superior authority over the presiding officer of the National Assembly in matters relating to legal representation.

“The issue is not whether the Senate President authorised our engagement. Rather, they appear to be suggesting that the Director of Legal Services has overriding authority over the Senate President in matters relating to legal briefs.

He said, “The Senate President, as Chairman of the National Assembly and the approving authority, can, where circumstances require and the Clerk is not readily available, direct that the Senate be properly represented in court.”

He concluded by renewing his call for the resignation of both officials.

He said, “Therefore, this is a clear act of indiscretion on the part of both the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Director of Legal Services. In my view, both of them should resign.

“Please state my position clearly: I am calling on the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Director of Legal Services to resign because, in my opinion, their actions undermine the authority of the Senate President.”

The dispute marks another chapter in the protracted legal battle arising from Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s suspension from the Senate, which has generated multiple proceedings before the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and other courts over disciplinary powers, legislative procedure and the constitutional relationship between the judiciary and the legislature.

While the National Assembly’s latest correspondence does not determine the validity of the law firm’s fee claim, it firmly distances the Office of the Clerk from any contractual liability, leaving the issue of payment and the propriety of the engagement likely to be resolved through further legal or administrative processes.