Suspended Kogi Central senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has denied violating the court orders restraining her from posting on social media and granting interviews over her allegations against Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.
Natasha was responding to Akpabio’s suit demanding an apology over the satirical apology she posted on her Facebook page.
Akpabio in a fresh application filed by his legal team, led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, had asked the Abuja Federal High Court to order Akpoti-Uduaghan to delete the video because it violated a judge’s directive.
Ogunwumiju also requested the court to order Akpoti-Uduaghan to remove the post from all her social media accounts.
The legal action followed a controversial video shared by Akpoti-Uduaghan on April 27, where she mockingly “apologised”; to Akpabio.
In the video, she said she was “sorry for the crime of maintaining dignity and self-respect”; and sarcastically expressed regret for not allowing the Senate President to “have his way”; with her.
The post, which quickly went viral on social media, was widely seen as a jab at Akpabio amid ongoing tensions between the two lawmakers.
There has been bad blood between both senators after Natasha accused Akpabio of sexual overtures after a heated argument over seating arrangement in the Senate.
However, in a counter-affidavit, Natasha stated: “I have seen, read and understood the Motion on Notice dated 5th May 2025 filed by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant and the Affidavit in Support thereof deposed to by one Philemon Garba, and I state that the allegations contained therein are misleading, inaccurate, and do not reflect the true state of affairs.
“That save as are herein expressly admitted, I deny each and every allegation, assertion, conclusion, insinuation, and averment contained in the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice dated 5th May 2025.
“The facts stated in paragraph 4 of the Applicant’s affidavit in support of the motion under reference are extraneous to the subject matter of this suit. The Applicant’s affidavit consists of conclusions, legal argument, and extraneous facts and is liable to be struck out.
“My Facebook post of 27th April 2025, styled “Satiric al Apology Letter,”; neither mentions this action nor references any matter subjudice; it is political satire on patriarchal norms in the legislature and is protected speech under Section 39(1) of the Constitution.
“The post did not (and could not) prejudice these proceedings. No evidence of actual or likely prejudice has been supplied by the Applicant.
“On the 4th day of May 2025, Mr. Monday Ubani, SAN (A counsel to the Applicant) published a Facebook post commenting directly on these proceedings and vilifying me.
“That save as are herein expressly admitted, I deny each and every allegation, assertion, conclusion, insinuation, and averment contained in the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice dated 5th May 2025.
“That the instant Molion is borne of malice and intended to harass, intimidate, and scandalise me for exercising my constitutional guaranteed right to fair hearing and to free expression.”;
