In a fiery showdown between judiciary power and political defiance, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has taken the battle to the Court of Appeal, challenging a ₦5 million contempt ruling handed down by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The senator, who represents Kogi Central, was convicted of contempt over a satirical Facebook post referencing sexual harassment allegations against Senate President Godswill Akpabio, a respondent in her pending suit. Justice Nyako ruled that the post breached a gag order and directed Natasha to pay the hefty fine and issue a public apology in two national dailies and on her social media.
In a blistering appeal, she accuses the judge of trampling on her constitutional right to fair hearing, ignoring due process, and engaging in what her legal team describes as “judicial overreach dressed up as justice.”
“This isn’t justice—it’s persecution,” a top aide to the senator told National Update. “It sends a chilling message about the weaponization of contempt laws against critics of the system.”
Central to the appeal is the claim that the Facebook post—made outside the courtroom and unrelated to the substantive issues in court—could not lawfully serve as grounds for summary contempt. Her counsel, Michael Jonathan Numa, SAN, argues that proper procedures, including service of Forms 48 and 49 under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, were completely ignored.
“The alleged contempt was ex facie curiae—outside the court’s presence. The judge had no legal basis to try and convict her summarily,” Numa said. “This is a gross miscarriage of justice.”
The appeal rests on six grounds, citing lack of jurisdiction, denial of fair hearing, and biased interpretation of the Facebook post. In a dramatic twist, Natasha also accuses Justice Nyako of turning a blind eye to public commentary by other senior lawyers—such as Olisa Agbakoba and Monday Ubani, SANs—who spoke freely in the media about the same case without facing sanctions.
“Why was Natasha singled out?” asked one analyst. “This looks like selective justice—a dangerous precedent that threatens freedom of speech in a democratic society.”
Among the reliefs sought, Senator Natasha is asking the Court of Appeal to quash the entire contempt judgment, set aside the ₦5 million fine, and affirm that her post did not violate any subsisting court order. She also seeks a declaration that the trial judge acted beyond her authority in convicting her without following due process.
As the legal drama unfolds, the case has reignited national debate over the boundaries of judicial authority, the sanctity of satire and expression, and the troubling possibility of courts being used to muzzle dissenting voices.
With the Court of Appeal set to weigh in, the stakes are high—not just for Natasha, but for the future of political speech and judicial accountability in Nigeria.
