Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has launched a fiery legal battle to overturn a ₦5 million fine slapped on her by the Federal High Court July 12, 2025.
The fine was imposed over a satirical Facebook post she made during an ongoing court case involving her Senate suspension July 12.
This controversy has stirred debates about judicial overreach, freedom of expression, and political intimidation in Nigeria.
The Controversial Facebook Post That Sparked Legal Action
The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Binta Nyako, found Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of civil contempt.
The court described her Facebook post as “disrespectful” and “prejudicial” to the ongoing proceedings.
The post, laced with satire, touched on sexual harassment issues, but the court ruled it interfered with the legal process surrounding her suspension from the Senate.
Interestingly, the court declined to jail the senator but ordered her to pay a hefty ₦5 million fine to the Federal Government Treasury.
She was also mandated to publish an apology in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page within seven days.
This ruling has been widely criticized for being heavy-handed and politically motivated.
A Paradoxical Judgment: Contempt Fine Amidst Favorable Ruling
In a twist, Justice Nyako simultaneously ruled in favor of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan on the main suit.
The judge declared her six-month Senate suspension unlawful, emphasizing that such a removal effectively denies her constituents representation for a full legislative year.
The court ordered the Senate to recall her immediately to resume her legislative duties.
This paradoxical judgment punishing her for contempt while affirming her rights has left many questioning the motivations behind the contempt sanction.
Six-Ground Appeal Challenges Legality and Fairness
On July 9, 2025, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, through her lead counsel Roland Otaru (SAN), filed a six-ground appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The appeal challenges both the legality and fairness of the contempt ruling.
A key argument is that the Facebook post had no direct connection to the suspension case.
The senator insists the post addressed sexual harassment, a separate issue from the court’s pending matter.
She argues that charging her with contempt on this basis was misplaced and excessive.
Allegations of Judicial Overreach and Rights Violations
The senator further accuses the trial judge of imposing what she calls a criminal sanction a fine in a civil contempt case without following proper criminal procedures. She claims this violated her right to a fair hearing.
Her appeal also highlights the judge’s disregard for the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, which outlines the proper procedures for contempt proceedings.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team argues that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to try contempt “ex facie curiae” (outside the presence of the court) and had no authority to impose a fine payable to the federal government in a civil matter.
The ₦5 Million Fine: Excessive and Punitive?
The senator describes the ₦5 million penalty as “excessive and punitive.”
She demands the fine be completely quashed. Her appeal calls on the Court of Appeal to:
- Set aside Justice Nyako’s judgment
- Declare the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the contempt charge
- Affirm that contempt proceedings of this nature require criminal procedure
- Nullify the fine and the apology directive
This appeal raises critical questions about the balance between judicial authority and individual rights in Nigeria’s democracy.
Political Context: Is This a Warning to Critics?
Observers see this case as more than just a legal dispute. It symbolizes the growing tension between political dissent and judicial power in Nigeria.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s vocal criticism of political actors and her use of social media to highlight sensitive issues may have triggered this harsh response.
Critics argue that the contempt ruling is a thinly veiled attempt to silence a prominent opposition figure.
The fine and forced apology appear designed to intimidate other politicians and activists from speaking out.
Freedom of Expression Under Threat?
This case spotlights the fragile state of freedom of expression in Nigeria.
While courts have the duty to protect their integrity, many legal experts warn against using contempt laws to stifle legitimate criticism or satire.
The satirical nature of the Facebook post should have been protected under free speech rights, they argue.
Instead, the court’s ruling risks setting a dangerous precedent where social media users face severe penalties for expressing dissenting views.
What This Means for Nigerian Democracy
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s appeal is a test case for Nigeria’s justice system.
It challenges whether courts will uphold constitutional freedoms or bow to political pressure.
The outcome will influence how politicians and citizens engage with social media and the judiciary.
It could either reinforce a culture of accountability or deepen fears of repression.
A Battle for Justice and Free Speech
As the Court of Appeal prepares to hear the case, all eyes are on Abuja.
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s fight against the ₦5 million fine is more than a personal battle.
It is a fight for democratic principles, fair judicial process, and the right to speak freely without fear of punitive backlash.
This controversy exposes the tension between power and justice in Nigeria’s evolving democracy.
It also raises urgent questions about the role of social media in political discourse and the limits of judicial authority.
The case raises controversy over judicial overreach, free speech, and political intimidation in Nigeria.
