data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/92be8/92be8d1af526d5ea7087b44137d380f271a55433" alt="JUST IN: Natasha Akpoti files N1.3bn Defamation Lawsuit against Akpabio JUST IN: Natasha Akpoti files N1.3bn Defamation Lawsuit against Akpabio"
JUST IN: Natasha Akpoti files N1.3bn Defamation Lawsuit against Akpabio
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a lawsuit against the President of the Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio, for alleged defamation.
iDeemlawful reports that last Thursday, Akpoti-Uduaghan created a scene during plenary by refusing to accept a new seat allocated to her and openly defied Akpabio by reading a point of order despite having been ruled out of order.
At the height of the situation, the Senate President Godswill Akpabio called on Senate security to walk the female lawmaker out of the chambers, but fellow lawmakers’ intervention saved the situation from degenerating out of hand.
However, in a suit filed before the Federal Capital Territory High Court on 25 February 2025, the President of the Senate, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the Senior Legislative Aide to the Senate President, Mfon Patrick, were listed as the second and third defendants.
In the suit, marked CV/737/25, Akpoti-Uduaghan, through her lawyer, Victor Giwa, alleged that defamatory statements were made by the Senate President and published by his aide on Facebook.
According to him, the post, titled “Is the Local Content Committee of the Senate Natasha’s Birthright?” included a statement suggesting that Akpoti-Uduaghan believed being a lawmaker was only about “pancaking her face and wearing transparent outfits to the chamber.”
Giwa argued that the statement was defamatory, provocative, and disparaging, lowering his client’s dignity in the eyes of her colleagues and the public.
“A DECLARATION that the words, ‘It is bottled anger by the Kogi lawmaker, who knows nothing about legislative rules. She thinks being a lawmaker is all about pancaking her face and wearing transparent outfits to the chamber,” used and written by the third defendant at the prompting of the first and second defendants, is defamatory and intended to cause public opprobrium and disaffection toward the claimant.” He stated.
He also urged the court to restrain the defendants and their associates from making further defamatory statements against his client on any platform.
“AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the defendants, whether acting by themselves or through their agents, privies, assigns, or associates, from further publishing or causing to be published the said defamatory words or any similar publications about the claimant on social media or in any other manner capable of defaming her,” He further argued.
Furthermore, Akpoti-Uduaghan asked the court to order the defendants to pay her N100 billion in general damages and N300 million as litigation costs.
“An order for the payment of the sum of N100,000,000,000 as general damages. An order for the payment of the sum of N300,000,000 as the cost of action,” she prayed.
Meanwhile, the Senate has referred Akpoti-Uduaghan to the committee on ethics, privileges, and public petitions for disciplinary review.
The upper legislative chamber reached a resolution on Tuesday, February 25, 2024, during plenary, following consideration and adoption of a report presented by Yemi Adaramodu, the chamber’s spokesperson.
Adaramodu, who raised a point of order during plenary, said the incident had tarnished the senate’s image.
He said attempts to clarify the senate’s position have been unsuccessful as the public already have their opinion on the incident based on the Kogi lawmaker’s action.
Senators unanimously approved that the matter be referred to the committee after it was put to a voice vote by Akpabio.
Akpabio asked the committee on ethics and privileges to review the entire incident and report back to the senate.
He noted that house rules permit members to sit anywhere, however, they are required to make contributions from their assigned seats.
He suggested that a lack of familiarity with senate procedures may have played a role in the dispute.