Senate President Godswill Akpabio filed suit against suspended Kogi Central Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan on May 7, 2025, at the Federal High Court in Abuja. He seeks an order forcing her to delete a mocking apology post on social media and to publish a formal retraction in national papers . The motion is part of her own suit challenging her suspension from the Senate.
The suit cites case number CS/384/25. Akpabio’s legal team led by SAN Kehinde Ogunwumiju argues her post defied a gag order issued April 4 by Justice Binta Nyako. That order barred both parties from public comments on the sexual harassment dispute until the case ends .
The April 4 order came after Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan accused Akpabio of unwanted advances in December 2023. She also clashed over her allocated Senate seat in February 2025. The ethics committee then suspended her for six months for misconduct, not the harassment claim .
On April 27, she posted a mock apology. She said she wrongly thought her Senate seat was won by fair vote, not by personal favors . The post used biting irony to question merit and integrity under Akpabio’s leadership.
Akpabio’s team calls her action contempt of court. They ask for deletion of the post across all her platforms. They also demand she publish a written apology in at least two national dailies. They want an affidavit confirming her compliance .
Senator Akpoti‑Uduaghan’s camp defends the post as free speech and protest against abuse of power. They argue the gag order violates her right to speak on matters of public interest. Her lawyer has yet to file a formal response in court.
Legal experts say the court will balance free speech against contempt. Professor Amina Bello, constitutional law scholar, notes gag orders in civil suits are rare but valid if they protect due process. She says the court must weigh public interest in both debate and orderly justice.
Women’s rights groups have linked this feud to broader gender issues. They say her suspension and the gag order chill voices of female legislators. They recall the “We Are All Natasha” protests over her harassment claim early this year .
Civil society groups also warn that punishing satire may harm Nigeria’s democratic discourse. They point to past rulings that upheld limited speech where contempt threatens court fairness. They expect the Abuja court to set clear limits.
On the other side, some Senate supporters defend Akpabio. They view the apology post as disrespectful and disruptive. Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele said the post worsened chamber harmony and flouted orders to keep debate inside court walls.
Public reaction online split along partisan lines. Hashtags supporting “#DeleteThePost” trended among ruling party backers. Others used “#ElectionsNotErections” to mock the Senate leadership. Engagement peaked when coverage spread to local blogs.
The legal fight deepens a feud that began with a row over seating order. Akpabio had moved her name‑plate without warning. She called that act symbolic of deeper power plays. Both sides traded suits claiming billions in damages over suspension and defamation.
The Federal High Court hearing is set for May 20, 2025. Observers expect heated arguments. If the court holds her in contempt, she may face fines or brief jail time. If it upholds her free‑speech claim, it could lift the gag on both parties.
Beyond this case, many feel a more open and fair system is overdue. Nigeria’s Senate has long faced criticism for opaque discipline and weak checks on leadership. This clash may prompt reviews of standing orders and court intervention rules.
Expert opinion also highlights risks of social media bursts. Promise lawyers urge caution. They say public figures must tread carefully when courts limit online comments. They recommend formal court filings rather than dramatic posts.
For Akpabio, a win could restore his authority and reinforce limits on insults. For Akpoti‑Uduaghan, a victory may embolden her and other senators to speak out. Her legal team claims she fights for constituents who demand honest debate.
The case tests Nigeria’s balance between respect for courts and the right to mock leaders. It may also shape norms for political satire. Other lawmakers watch closely before choosing to lampoon rivals online.
As tensions rise, some voices call for mediation. They urge a private meeting to resolve the dispute. They say a face‑to‑face apology could heal wounds without clogging the courts.
Still, the heated tone on both sides suggests little room for compromise yet. Akpoti‑Uduaghan has said she won’t retract her respectful fight for truth. Akpabio insists he won’t tolerate mockery that harms his reputation or the Senate’s dignity.
The outcome will matter for future rulings on contempt. It could clarify how far social media satire can go when court orders bar public comments. It may set a precedent for politicians worldwide.
Whatever the decision, this suit shines a light on Nigeria’s evolving politics. It shows how courts, social media, and public opinion now collide. And it reveals how women senators may face stiffer penalties for speaking out.
The clash between Akpabio and Akpoti‑Uduaghan is more than personal. It speaks to rule of law, free speech, and respect in public office. It forces Nigerians to ask: should satire risk contempt, or should courts allow a sharp rebuke of power?
Only the court can answer. But this case will echo far beyond its doorsteps. It may rewrite the rules of political engagement in Nigeria’s democracy.