Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of Kogi Central has filed an appeal against a Federal High Court judgment that found her in contempt and imposed a N5 million fine, describing the penalty as “excessive and punitive.”
In a Notice of Appeal dated July 9 and submitted by her legal counsel, Roland Otaru, SAN, the lawmaker is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the contempt ruling delivered by Justice Binta Nyako and to nullify the financial sanction.
Justice Nyako had earlier convicted the senator for breaching a court directive that barred all parties from engaging the media on a matter pending before her. The court subsequently ordered Akpoti-Uduaghan to publish public apologies in two national newspapers and on her Facebook page within seven days, in addition to the monetary fine.
In response, the senator argues that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to try her for contempt committed outside the courtroom—known legally as contempt ex facie curiae—and to impose criminal-like sanctions without following the prescribed procedures under the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act.
According to the appeal, which is based on six legal grounds, the trial court erred in finding the senator guilty of contempt and in awarding a punitive financial penalty.
One of the key arguments raised in the appeal is that Justice Nyako acted beyond her authority by entertaining a motion filed on May 7, 2025, by the Senate President, which alleged that Akpoti-Uduaghan had violated the court’s April 4 order through a Facebook post.
“The proper procedure for contempt committed ex facie curiae is to proceed against the alleged contemnor by the regular procedure of the criminal trial before another judge to ensure that before the contemnor is punished, the charges preferred against him are established beyond a reasonable doubt.“The trial court judge lacks the vires and indeed the jurisdiction to entertain an alleged contempt of its own order committed ex facie curiae,” the appellant submitted.
The senator also contends that her constitutional right to fair hearing was breached, citing procedural irregularities.
In another point of contention, the senator defended a satirical apology she posted on April 27, 2025, arguing it pertained to sexual harassment allegations and not the core subject matter of the court case.
“The question for determination and the reliefs sought in the appellant’s originating summons, when construed holistically, relate squarely to the propriety or otherwise of the referral of the appellant to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, as being ultra vires her constitutional right to fair hearing and the rules of the Senate, leading to her suspension during the pendency of suit.“The sexual harassment allegation was not before the trial court.“The liability as adjudged by the trial judge against the appellant with respect to a subject matter unrelated to the judicial proceedings before her ladyship was erroneous and, indeed, perverse,” she argued.
Further challenging the ruling, Akpoti-Uduaghan stated:
“The 3rd respondent’s application for contempt sought inter alia for an order to delete the said satirical apology and an apology to the Judiciary and the 3rd respondent simpliciter.“The 3rd respondent’s application filed on May 7, 2025 did not expressly seek for the payment of fine of N5 million or any amount whatsoever.“The trial judge expressly, in her decision, substituted the 3rd respondent’s reliefs sought with her own order.“The law is settled that the court and indeed the parties are bound by the reliefs sought on the face of the application under reference.“The imposition of fine by a trial court judge is in the realm of criminal sanctions.“The trial judge can only award cost to the successful party as indemnity in a civil proceedings and not to impose criminal sanction in the form of fines payable to the Federal Government of Nigeria.“The decision of the trial judge to substitute 3rd respondent’s reliefs sought with her own orders extraneous to the motion paper for amounts to descending into the arena of conflict which occasioned a miscarriage of justice,” the appellant submitted.
She is therefore seeking from the appellate court, “An order setting aside the judgement of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, Coram: Binta Nyako J., delivered on July 4, 2025, in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 on the following terms:
“An order of the Court of Appeal declaring that the trial court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain an alleged contempt ex facie curiae involving the imposition of fine which is criminal in nature, against her own orders without compliance with the proper criminal procedure and provision contained in the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act.
“An Order of the Court of Appeal declaring that the trial court lacks the requisite vires and jurisdiction to impose the fine of N5 million which is a criminal sanction in civil proceedings without subjecting the appellant to the proper criminal process requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“An Order of the Court of Appeal declaring that the appellant’s satirical apology letter addressed to the 3rd respondent dated April 27, 2025 on her Facebook page did not amount to contempt of the orders of the court made on April 4, 2025.
Meanwhile, Justice Nyako in the main suit which was brought by the appellant challenging her suspension from the Senate for six months, had held that the action of the legislators was excessive and robs the people of Kogi Central Senatorial District of effective representations.
The judge accordingly called on the lawmakers to recall the suspended senator to enable her serve the people who voted her into office