*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:
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
