The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja adjourned to Tuesday, May 13, for a definite hearing on Senate President Godswill Akpabio’s contempt claims against suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central Senate District.
The date was set by Justice Binta Nyako after the second and third defendants filed an application citing the plaintiff’s alleged contempt.
The legal dispute between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan began over seating arrangements during plenary on February 20.
Akpoti-Uduaghan then accused Akpabio of sexual harassment while appearing as a guest on a television show.
Akpoti-Uduaghan filed an ex parte motion in the Federal High Court to prevent the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions from investigating her.
She sued the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Senate President, and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions, Senator Nedamwen Imasuen.
On March 4, the Senate began disciplinary proceedings against Akpoti-Uduaghan following her ex parte application.
Despite a restraining order from the court, the Senate proceeded to suspend her, citing a report by the committee claiming gross misconduct, despite the subject being sub judice.
On Friday, April 4, 2025, Justice Nyako ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan, Akpabio, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, and Imasuen to desist from giving media interviews or making social media posts on the issue while it was pending in court.
Akpabio’s counsel accused Akpoti-Uduaghan of granting press interviews despite the court’s directive.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team, led by Jibrin Okutekpa, informed the court on Monday that the matter was scheduled for hearing and that all necessary documents had been submitted.
Charles Yoila appeared for the first defendant, Paul Daudu for the second, Ekoh Ejembi (SAN) for the third, and Valentine Offia for the fourth.
All defence lawyers stated that they were in conformity with the court’s previous orders and ready for the hearing.
Despite the ruling prohibiting social media posts, Daudu informed the court that the plaintiff had posted a satirical remark on her Facebook page.
“This matter is coming up for a definite hearing. The second defendant has filed its schedule of hearing. Ordinarily, we are ready to proceed, but a further affidavit was served on me just on Friday, which I am entitled to respond to.
“This court ordered that there should be no social media posts, but there was one. The plaintiff herself posted a satirical apology on her Facebook page,” Daudu said.
He claimed that the post insulted the court and breached its order and urged the court to hold her in contempt.
Ejembi, Akpabio’s attorney, endorsed Daudu’s position, claiming that the plaintiff’s Facebook post damaged the court’s authority.
“We are alleging that the Facebook post made by the plaintiff is a mockery of the court’s proceedings. We tender a Punch newspaper report showing she made the post despite the court’s order,” Ejembi said.
In response, the plaintiff’s attorney insisted that the Facebook post was about the sexual harassment complaint, not the subject before the court.
Okutekpa urged the court to reject the defendants’ statements and instead hear the core case.
“Our counter-affidavit concerns only the matter before the court. The satirical post has no connection to it,” he argued.
He prayed the court to fast-track the hearing, noting that Akpoti-Uduaghan had spent 68 cumulative days out of the National Assembly.
However, Justice Nyako insisted that the contempt issue must be addressed first.
“I cannot proceed with this matter until I conclude on the issue of contempt. If there is contempt, I have to hear and determine it first,” she said.
In turn, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s counsel raised a contempt allegation against all the defendants.
“My Lord, you have paused this trial over a contempt allegation. We also have an issue of contempt against all the defendants,” he said.
“I have the power to summon all your clients to appear in court. If counsel or litigants disobey the court, then the court has no business hearing them—that is my position,” she said.
Speaking to Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team, she added, “If you have an application for contempt, bring it forward so the court can hear it.”
She added, “You cannot allow your client to disrespect this court. If they are found in contempt, they will face punishment. If not, the court will proceed.”
Justice Nyako warned the lawyers, warning that continued disobedience of court orders by their clients could lead to consequences.
