Suspended Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has firmly denied allegations of contempt of court following a viral social media post widely perceived as a satirical jab at Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
The unfolding legal drama stems from an April 27 Facebook video in which Natasha issued what she described as a “sarcastic apology” to Akpabio.
In the clip, she said, “I’m sorry for the crime of maintaining dignity and self-respect.” The video quickly gained traction online, sparking controversy and drawing mixed reactions from the public.
Akpabio’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, has since filed a fresh motion at the Federal High Court in Abuja, claiming that Natasha’s post constituted a breach of an existing court order.
In their motion, Akpabio’s counsel asked the court to compel Natasha to: remove the April 27 video from all social media platforms, tender a formal and public apology, and face possible sanctions for contempt of court.
According to the motion, Natasha was previously barred from granting interviews or making public statements regarding her sexual harassment allegations against the Senate President. Akpabio’s team insisted the video violates that judicial directive.
In response, Natasha’s legal team filed a counter-affidavit challenging the competence and intent of Akpabio’s application.
The senator argues that the social media post was a form of political satire, not a legal breach. Her lawyers offered a detailed argument across several key points, saying “Equity Requires Clean Hands.”
“He who comes to equity must come with clean hands,” her legal team stated, citing established principles of fairness. They argue that Akpabio himself, through his lawyers and public engagements, had vilified Natasha in the media and should not seek the court’s protection while engaging in such conduct. Therefore, he lacks the moral and legal standing to pursue relief.
Natasha’s team further argued that the application was fundamentally flawed and unknown to law. They referenced Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, which prescribes the appropriate procedure for contempt proceedings through Forms 48 and 49—both of which were neither issued nor served.
They contend that Akpabio’s failure to follow due process renders his application legally incompetent and deserving of dismissal.
According to Natasha’s counter-affidavit, the affidavit submitted in support of Akpabio’s motion is riddled with legal conclusions, extraneous opinions, and speculative content, particularly paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, which they argue should be struck out for failing to comply with evidentiary standards.
Her lawyers said that the Facebook post did not reference any case before the court or specific details of the legal matter. Rather, it was a generalized political commentary protected under Nigeria’s Constitution.
Central to Natasha’s defense is her constitutional right to free speech. Her legal team invoked Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of expression.
“The Respondent’s comment was satirical and political in nature, and falls within her protected right as a citizen and a public official,” her legal brief read.
Her lawyers assert that political satire is a recognised and legitimate form of democratic expression—particularly important in holding public officeholders accountable. They also accused Akpabio of trying to weaponize judicial processes to silence a political rival and avoid scrutiny.
Background: Allegations and Power Struggle
This legal confrontation is the latest in a growing feud between the two lawmakers. Earlier, Natasha accused Akpabio of sexual harassment following a disagreement over Senate seating arrangements. The accusation made headlines nationwide and triggered heated debate about gender-based harassment in Nigeria’s political institutions.
Natasha was subsequently suspended from the Senate, a move her supporters decried as politically motivated and retaliatory. The case has reignited public conversations about freedom of speech, gender-based violence, and the abuse of institutional power. Human rights organizations and gender advocacy groups have voiced support for Natasha, urging the judiciary to uphold constitutional rights and discourage political intimidation.
Legal experts note that the outcome of this case could set an important precedent for how far Nigerian politicians can go in using courts to control speech and dissent.
With both parties standing their ground, the matter is expected to continue in court in the coming weeks. The court’s decision will be closely watched by civil society, political observers, and ordinary Nigerians concerned about transparency, accountability, and constitutional freedoms.
