in Abuja 

The Senator representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the National Assembly, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, has appealed part of the judgement of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which found her guilty of disobeying its orders.

Akpoti-Uduaghan in the Notice of Appeal dated July 9 and filed on her behalf by Chief Roland Otaru, SAN, is specifically seeking the setting aside of the contempt order as well as the nullification of the N5 million fine, for being “excessive and punitive”.

It would be recalled that Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had in a ruling of contempt application convicted the appellant for flouting her orders which barred parties before her from speaking with the media in respect of the subject matter before her court.

She subsequently ordered the Senator to pay a fine of N5 million as well as tender public apology in two national dailies and her Facebook page, within seven days.

Dissatisfied, the Kogi senator has approached the appellate court for an order 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.”

The appeal which is predicated on six grounds claimed that the trial court erred in law when it found her guilty of contempt and subsequently imposed a fine of N5 million on her.

In ground one of the Notice of Appeal, Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged that the trial judge erred in law when she assumed jurisdiction and entertained the Senate President’s motion dated May 7, 2025 agitating an alleged contempt committed ex facie curiae (on her facebook page) against her own orders made on April 4, 2025 and summarily found the appellant liable for a punitive fine of N5 million and public apology on two national dallies and on her facebook page. 

The senator pointed out that the alleged contempt she was accused of was unrelated to the judicial proceedings before the trial court. 

“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.

Besides, Akpoti-Uduaghan claimed that Justice Nyako erred in law and breached her right to fair hearing when the court adopted a wrong procedure in adjudging the appellant liable in contempt of any enforceable order of court by committal without compliance with the relevant statutory requirements prescribed under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. 

In grounds three, the appellant alleged that the trial court erred in law when it adjudged her satirical apology, dated April 27, 2025, addressed to the Senate President and relating squarely to allegations of sexual harassment, as contemptuous and amounting to disobedience of the court’s order which specifically restrained comments relating to the subject matter of the suit. 

“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. 

Akpoti-Uduaghan further submitted that she was not liable for contempt, as the satirical apology was unconnected to the subject matter of the suit. 

“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.