The Federal High Court in Abuja is set to address a contempt case initiated by Senate President Godswill Akpabio against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. The case concerns an alleged breach of a court order by Akpoti-Uduaghan, specifically regarding a social media post that Akpabio claims defied the court’s directive. Justice Binta Nyako, who is presiding over the matter, has adjourned the hearing to Tuesday at 12 p.m. and indicated that she intends to also consider a separate contempt charge brought earlier by Akpoti-Uduaghan against Akpabio, the Nigerian Senate, and others. These charges stem from claims that they failed to comply with a prior court injunction.
Justice Nyako emphasized the need for a copy of the Senate rules for the next session, suggesting she would prioritize the case by clearing her court schedule. This legal clash originates from an earlier ruling issued on April 4 by Justice Nyako, in which all involved parties were barred from engaging in media discussions or making social media statements related to the ongoing case. This order aimed to maintain the integrity of the judicial process while the matter was still before the court.
Akpabio’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Kehinde Ogunwumiju, had complained that Akpoti-Uduaghan violated the court’s restriction by speaking to various media outlets and later publishing a satirical letter on Facebook, which they claim also breached the court’s order.
On the other hand, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan had already filed a separate contempt charge against Akpabio and the Senate, accusing them of acting against a directive previously given by Justice Obiora Egwuatu. That order had instructed all parties involved to refrain from taking any further steps until the court had made a ruling on the substantive issues. Her legal action named the Clerk of the National Assembly, Akpabio, the Senate as a whole, Senator Neda Imasuen, and the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct as defendants.
The court’s ruling on these contempt claims is expected to clarify the responsibilities of both parties while also reinforcing the importance of judicial orders in ongoing legal proceedings. Are you interested in a summary of the legal implications this case might have?