Appeal in Focus: Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Challenges ₦5 Million Contempt Fine

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has formally approached the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn a ₦5 million fine imposed on her by the Federal High Court for a satirical post she made on Facebook. The appeal, which rests on six key grounds, underscores the lawmaker’s determination to contest what she deems a flawed judgment on civil contempt and a violation of her constitutional rights.

Filed on July 9 through her lead counsel, Roland Otaru (SAN), the appeal challenges a ruling by Justice Binta Nyako who, days earlier, found Akpoti-Uduaghan guilty of contempt for making a Facebook post while a legal case involving her suspension from the Senate was still under judicial consideration. The court viewed the post as disrespectful and prejudicial to its proceedings, though it stopped short of imposing a prison sentence.

Instead, Justice Nyako ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan to pay a ₦5 million fine to the Federal Government and to issue a public apology in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page within seven days. Despite the sanction, the court also ruled in her favour in the main case, declaring her Senate suspension as unlawful.

Jubilant Cheers as Joke Silva Celebrates Olu Jacobs At 83: A Love Story Spanning Decades

Facebook Post Sparks Contempt Charge and Legal Pushback

At the heart of the controversy is a Facebook post the court described as “satirical.” According to Justice Nyako, the tone and timing of the post amounted to an interference with court proceedings. However, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan maintains that the post had no connection to the pending lawsuit and instead addressed broader societal issues like sexual harassment.

In her appeal, the senator argues that the court’s interpretation of her post as contemptuous was unfounded and that the fine imposed lacked legal grounding. She emphasized that the satire did not influence or prejudice the outcome of the court’s deliberations.

Moreover, her legal team insists that the court erred by treating the contempt charge, which was civil in nature, as a quasi-criminal matter. They contend that imposing a monetary fine and ordering a public apology, without observing the rigorous standards of criminal law—such as proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt—was inappropriate and unconstitutional.

 Challenge of Jurisdiction and Fair Hearing in Contempt Ruling

One of the most striking aspects of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s appeal is her argument that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to try contempt ex facie curiae—an offence committed outside the courtroom. She claims that under Nigerian law, such contempt proceedings must adhere strictly to the procedures set out in the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

Her appeal further accuses the trial judge of breaching her fundamental right to a fair hearing. According to her legal team, the court proceeded without properly establishing whether the alleged contempt affected the integrity of the trial or prejudiced the court’s ability to dispense justice impartially.

In her notice of appeal, Akpoti-Uduaghan stated: “The lower court lacked jurisdiction to try contempt ex facie curiae and had no legal authority to impose a fine payable to the federal government in a civil matter.”

Additionally, she argues that the ₦5 million penalty was excessive and served more as a punishment than a corrective measure. Her appeal seeks to completely annul the judgment, remove the fine, and strike down the requirement for a public apology.

Suspension Ruling Overshadowed by Contempt Dispute

Ironically, the contempt ruling overshadowed the major legal victory Akpoti-Uduaghan secured in the same court session. Justice Nyako ruled that her suspension from the Senate—purportedly for a period of six months—was unconstitutional. The judge pointed out that denying her constituents legislative representation for that long was tantamount to disenfranchisement.

In light of this, the court ordered the Senate to reinstate Akpoti-Uduaghan immediately, affirming her right to resume legislative duties. That favorable verdict, however, has been somewhat eclipsed by the controversy surrounding the contempt charge.

Legal analysts have observed that the case now poses an important constitutional test regarding the scope of free speech by public officials and the judiciary’s power to penalize perceived slights on social media.

As the case heads to the appellate court, the outcome may help clarify key legal issues surrounding contempt outside the courtroom, judicial oversight of online speech, and the due process rights of citizens—even when they are lawmakers.

For Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, the stakes are high—not only in terms of personal vindication but also in the broader context of defining the legal boundaries between expression and judicial decorum.