In the marble chambers of Abuja’s Federal Capital Territory High Court, a dramatic courtroom battle is brewing—one that has gripped the nation and exposed the simmering tension between power blocs in Nigeria’s political elite.
At the center of the controversy are two towering figures: Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the vocal and trailblazing lawmaker representing Kogi Central, and Godswill Akpabio, the Senate President and former Akwa Ibom State governor known for his political cunning and legislative control.
Here’s a deep dive into the timeline, tension, and trajectory of one of Nigeria’s most politically charged court cases in recent memory.
The Sparks That Lit the Fire: Political Tensions Boil Over
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has never been a stranger to controversy—or courage. With a background in law and development advocacy, Natasha built a reputation for confronting corruption and calling out what she perceived as entrenched impunity within Nigeria’s corridors of power.
Her clash with Senate President Godswill Akpabio, however, marked a new level of confrontation.
During a tense Senate session in early 2025, Natasha publicly accused Akpabio of unethical conduct, which she claimed was part of a broader pattern of intimidation and abuse of office. Akpabio, in turn, dismissed her claims as “reckless and politically motivated,” and a “deliberate act of defamation.”
In a viral audio and subsequent statements, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan also made serious allegations against former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello.
She accused Akpabio of intimidation, abuse of office, and covering up corruption, while alleging that Bello orchestrated multiple assassination attempts on her.
The Senate’s Ethics and Privileges Committee quickly intervened—suspending Natasha for six months over what it termed “unparliamentary conduct.” Supporters of Natasha condemned the move as a brazen abuse of institutional power, aimed at silencing a dissenting female voice in a male-dominated chamber.
The Legal Escalation: Natasha Strikes Back with ₦100 Billion Suit
In response, Natasha took the battle from the Senate floor to the courtroom. In March 2025, she filed a ₦100 billion defamation lawsuit against Akpabio at the FCT High Court in Abuja. Her legal team argued that Akpabio’s public dismissal of her claims—along with alleged coordinated statements from key figures loyal to him—had not only tarnished her reputation but inflicted emotional and political damage.
The lawsuit, filed under civil defamation statutes, demanded three things:
1. ₦100 billion in damages
2. A formal retraction and public apology
3. An injunction against further defamatory remarks
The court accepted jurisdiction, and Akpabio was summoned. In response, his legal team filed a flurry of preliminary motions to challenge the case.
Akpabio’s Legal Defense: Immunity, Dismissal, Delay
Akpabio’s defense strategy has centered on two major arguments:
Legislative Immunity: His lawyers argued that, as the sitting Senate President, Akpabio enjoys a level of constitutional immunity from civil litigation stemming from official conduct or statements made in the course of legislative duty.
Lack of Merit: They further described Natasha’s claims as “frivolous, politically charged, and lacking evidentiary basis.” The defense maintained that the alleged defamation was a misinterpretation of political discourse.
The court, however, ruled that defamation is a civil matter not shielded by legislative immunity, especially when the remarks in question were made outside the chambers and not tied directly to lawmaking functions. As such, the court dismissed the preliminary objections, clearing the path for a full trial.
The State Intervenes: Criminal Defamation Charges
On April 22, 2025, the Nigerian Federal Government filed criminal defamation charges against Natasha.
The lawsuit, lodged at the Federal Capital Territory High Court, accused her of making false, malicious, and injurious statements aimed at damaging Akpabio’s reputation. The charges were filed under Sections 391 and 392 of the Penal Code, which criminalize intentional defamation.
According to the federal government’s case, the content of Natasha’s statements went beyond political critique. Prosecutors argued that she had ventured into territory that constituted criminal harm — statements likely to incite public unrest and harm individual reputations without substantiated evidence.
This wasn’t just a civil complaint. If convicted, Natasha could face fines or imprisonment, a rare but severe escalation of political discourse into criminal prosecution.
High Stakes and High Tension in Court
The court session, initially slated for May 7, 2025, was clouded by delays. Judiciary staff strikes across Abuja disrupted proceedings, stalling Natasha’s formal arraignment. Despite that, court officials confirmed the charges had been served, and Natasha’s legal team acknowledged receipt.
However, another twist emerged: Akpabio himself did not appear in court for the early hearings. While not unusual for complainants in criminal proceedings, his absence drew public scrutiny.
In response, the court authorized substituted service, allowing court notices to be delivered to Akpabio via the Clerk of the National Assembly — a procedural but symbolic move that signaled the court’s intent to ensure no delay, no matter how powerful the defendant or complainant.
By late May, the court reconfirmed that Akpabio and Yahaya Bello would be subpoenaed to testify as prosecution witnesses, cementing the political weight the case had assumed.
Natasha’s Defense: Defiance, Evidence, and Public Support
From the beginning, Senator Natasha has rejected the charges as both unconstitutional and repressive. Her legal team emphasized that her comments were protected by her constitutional right to free expression and were, in fact, intended as whistleblowing on alleged corruption and misconduct.
Her lawyers have promised to bring hard evidence to support her claims, asserting that the accusations stem from a political effort to silence a vocal female legislator unafraid to challenge entrenched power.
Natasha’s camp also highlighted a perceived judicial imbalance, arguing that while the government rushed to charge her with defamation, their own petitions against Akpabio and Bello — including those related to her claims of harassment — remained uninvestigated.
In court filings and public statements, Natasha remained resolute: “Let them prosecute me. I am ready. But let the police also do their job and investigate Akpabio and Bello. No one is above the law.”
A New Front: Contempt of Court Charges
As the criminal proceedings progressed, another legal front opened. Akpabio’s lawyers filed contempt charges against Natasha, alleging that she violated an earlier court order which barred her from making further public statements on the matter while it was sub judice.
The Federal High Court set the hearing for May 13, 2025, triggering another intense courtroom exchange. Natasha again denied wrongdoing, stating that her comments fell within her protected rights and that she had not been served any binding restraining order prior to the alleged contemptuous remarks.
Her team described the contempt case as an attempt to gag her, characterizing it as judicial harassment orchestrated to strip her of both legal defense and public credibility.
The Road Ahead: Verdicts, Precedents, and Politics
As of June 2025, several court dates are on the calendar. Natasha is expected to take the stand, and so are both Akpabio and Yahaya Bello — a rare convergence of high-profile political figures on opposing sides of a legal contest.
The criminal trial could take months, and appeals may follow. But already, this case is shaping up to be a landmark moment for free speech jurisprudence in Nigeria.
Will the court uphold the government’s claim that Natasha crossed a line from critique into criminality? Or will it affirm her right to speak publicly about perceived injustices, even if her allegations remain unproven?
Whatever the outcome, the courtroom battle between Natasha and Akpabio is no longer just a personal feud. It is a test of Nigeria’s legal system.
Discussion about this post