Premium News
CONTEMPT CHARGE: NATASHA AKPOTI HEADS TO APPEAL COURT, CITES MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a formal appeal before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, challenging the judgment of the Federal High Court, which found her guilty of contempt and imposed a ₦5 million fine alongside a public apology.
The appeal, dated, targets the July 4 decision of Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, who ruled that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s satirical post on Facebook violated a subsisting court order and amounted to contempt.
In her Notice of Appeal filed in Suit No. CA/A/…/2025, the lawmaker is asking the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s ruling, arguing that the trial judge erred in law, denied her a fair hearing, and acted beyond jurisdiction.
Quoting the filing extensively, the appeal states, “The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when her Ladyship assumed jurisdiction and entertained the 3rd Respondent’s motion… agitating an alleged contempt committed ex facie curiae (on her Facebook page) against her own orders… and summarily found the Appellant liable for a punitive fine of ₦5,000,000.00 and a public apology in two national dailies and on her Facebook page.”
Akpoti-Uduaghan maintains that the Facebook post, which was a satirical apology directed at the Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio (the 3rd respondent in the case), was not related to the subject of the suit before the court.
“The Appellant’s satirical apology was unrelated to the judicial proceedings before the Trial Court,” the appeal reads, adding that contempt committed ex facie curiae is criminal in nature and must follow proper criminal trial procedures before another judge.
It added, “The learned trial judge failed to be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in OMOJAHE v. UMORU (1999) 8 NWLR Pt. 614 Pg 178 at 192-193, which failure occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
In addition to faulting the jurisdiction of the court, Akpoti-Uduaghan also argued that her constitutional right to a fair hearing was violated.
“The 3rd Respondent’s application was not preceded by the issuance of the prescribed Forms 48 and 49… The opportunity of the Appellant to purge herself of contempt is rooted in the issuance and service of Forms 48,” the appeal stated.
She said the court imposed the punishment summarily and based merely on affidavit evidence, contrary to the requirements of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, which mandates strict compliance before any contemnor can be punished.
In one of the more pointed grounds of appeal, she accused the trial judge of substituting the reliefs sought by the Senate President with her own:
“The 3rd Respondent’s application… did not expressly seek the payment of a fine of ₦5,000,000.00… The Learned Trial Judge… substituted the 3rd Respondent’s reliefs with her own order.”
She argued that such substitution and the imposition of a criminal sanction in a civil proceeding was a legal misstep.
The appeal added, “The Learned Trial Judge can only award costs to the successful party in civil proceedings and not impose criminal sanctions in the form of fines payable to the Federal Government of Nigeria.”
Akpoti-Uduaghan also contends that the amount imposed was excessive and punitive, especially in the context of what she insists was a misunderstanding rather than deliberate defiance of court orders.
“The offence the Appellant was alleged to have committed is a minor offence that borders on misunderstanding… The Learned Trial Judge’s decision in awarding ₦5,000,000.00 was excessive and punitive.”
The senator is also seeking the following reliefs from the appellate court: An order allowing the appeal; an order setting aside the entire Federal High Court ruling delivered by Justice Binta Nyako on July 4.
Also included in her appeal is a declaration that the contempt was improperly tried and that the satirical post did not amount to contempt, an order that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to try or punish ex facie contempt of its own orders without proper procedure.
“The Appellant was not liable for contempt, as the satirical apology was unconnected to the subject matter of the suit,” the document reasserts.
This development follows days of silence from the Kogi lawmaker after the court found her in contempt for violating a restraining order that barred parties from making public statements about the matter pending in court
