Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a formal appeal challenging a Federal High Court judgment that found her guilty of contempt.
The senator lodged a Notice of Appeal and a motion for stay of execution at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, following the ruling delivered on July 4, 2025, by Justice Binta Nyako in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025.
The court had imposed a ₦5 million fine on Akpoti-Uduaghan and ordered her to issue a public apology in two national newspapers as well as on her social media platforms.
The ruling stemmed from a satirical Facebook post made by the senator on April 27, 2025, which the court found violated an existing injunction barring media commentary on the pending matter.
In court documents filed on July 9 and 10, 2025, the senator asked the appellate court to halt the enforcement of the judgment, arguing that immediate execution would cause irreparable harm to her legislative responsibilities, political career, and public image.
The appeal names the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Nigerian Senate, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and Senator Neda Imasuen—Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions—as respondents.
Represented by a team of senior legal practitioners, including Prof. Roland Otaru (SAN), Michael Jonathan Numa (SAN), Chief J.S. Okutepa (SAN), Dr. E. West Idahosa (SAN), and J.I. Usman (SAN), Akpoti-Uduaghan contends that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on the matter and failed to adhere to mandatory procedures outlined in the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.
Her legal team specifically cited procedural defects, including failure to comply with Forms 48 and 49, which are required for contempt proceedings conducted outside the courtroom (contempt ex facie curiae). They argued that the contempt allegation, linked to comments about sexual harassment claims, bore no connection to the matter that led to her referral to the Senate Committee and subsequent suspension.
The appeal also contends that the ₦5 million fine constitutes a criminal sanction issued without the due process of law, thereby infringing on her right to a fair hearing. The defense described the penalty as excessive and punitive.
The motion stresses the need for judicial restraint, asserting that granting a stay of execution would help maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable damage, while not prejudicing the respondents. Conversely, it argued, denying the motion could render the appeal meaningless. Akpoti-Uduaghan has also declared her readiness to pay damages should the court find the application frivolous.
“This appeal is a critical step to uphold Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s constitutional rights and ensure judicial fairness,” said Michael Jonathan Numa, SAN. “The trial court’s ruling oversteps its authority and misapplies the law, necessitating a thorough review by the Court of Appeal.”
