As the battle between Ovie Omo-Agege and some of his colleagues at the Senate continues to linger, the senator representing a district in Delta state, showed up at the National Assembly on Wednesday, May 16, for the day's plenary.
Dimgba said that the reason given by the Senate and the Senate President for suspending Omo-Agege was unconstitutional. "In the circumstance, he held that the application lacked merit and struck same out", said Mr Duku.
The Senate had initially stated it would not respect the order, since it has filed an appeal, in a higher court.
He noted that notwithstanding that "the motion for stay of execution of the judgment of the Honourable Justice Nnamdi Dimgba (of the Federal High Court in Abuja) delivered last week in the case of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege v The Senate has not been heard and determined by the Federal High Court, the Senate resolved yesterday to comply with the terms of the judgment".
The judge also added that the Senate's decision to punish Omo-Agege for filing a suit against the Senate and for punishing him while his suit was pending constituted an affront on the judiciary.
Testimonies was made by various security agencies within the National Assembly accusing Mr Omo-Agege of leading seven unauthorised persons into the Red Chamber which led to the disruption of the Plenary.
The Judge said that if an application is appealing against reliefs he refused to grant, is of no significant to the vacation of suspension order.
10 airline employees busted in Dallas-Fort Worth Airport drug trafficking sting
Each person was charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a schedule II controlled substance. The employees agreed to ship meth to cities across the US for as much as $1,500-2,000 per kilogram, the indictment said.
The court held that the application, along with the notice of appeal that was attached to it, were "misdirected", saying it was not targeted at the May 10 verdict that nullified Omo-Agege's suspension.
But the Abuja High Court, it was learnt, voided the suspension on the ground that the petitioner alleged it was based on the legal action he instituted against the senate ahead of its investigation committee.
"Access to court is one key indicator of a democracy, the exercise of his rights can not be a basis for punishment".
He had among other things, prayed the court for, "A declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants' referral of the plaintiff to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions for trial for expressing his opinion on the purport of a Section of the Electoral Act N0".
The court ordered the Senate to recall the plaintiff immediately and equally pay him any salary or allowance that accrued to him within the period he was illegally suspended.
Although he later apologized for his comments, the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges recommended his suspension for 181 legislative days.
He maintained that suspending the senator for more than 14 days was denying his constituents the required representation.