In the wake of swirling media headlines and online commentary alleging that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has been “convicted” of contempt of court, a leading legal voice, Mr. Sylvester Udemezue, has issued a detailed clarification debunking such reports as inaccurate and legally misleading.

Speaking in a personal capacity in a statement released on Saturday, Udemezue—a respected legal scholar and rule of law advocate—stressed that there is no evidence of a criminal conviction against Senator Natasha, contrary to widespread public impressions. According to him, what transpired in court does not meet the legal threshold of a “conviction” as defined under Nigerian law.

“Conviction arises only from a criminal trial, after prosecution has proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt,” he stated, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in NWOSU v. Imo State Independent Electoral Commission and other relevant cases.

He explained that contempt of court in Nigeria is divided into civil and criminal categories, each carrying different implications. Civil contempt, the type reportedly involved in Natasha’s case, involves disobedience of a court order and is handled through quasi-civil proceedings, where proof is based on the balance of probabilities, not the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal matters.

Udemezue described the events leading to the court’s pronouncement, referencing a video posted by Senator Natasha on April 27, 2024, in which she issued a sarcastic apology to Senate President Godswill Akpabio. The video, perceived by Akpabio’s legal team as defiance of an earlier court order, prompted a motion for contempt filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

However, Natasha’s legal representatives argued the video was political satire protected by free speech and did not breach any court directive. They also pointed out procedural defects in the motion and claimed Akpabio himself had made prejudicial statements that undermined his legal standing.

Udemezue noted that from available facts—including media reports and legal filings—there is no indication that: a criminal charge was filed against Senator Natasha;

A formal arraignment took place; the Attorney-General or any recognised prosecuting body conducted a prosecution; a finding of guilt was reached through criminal trial procedures.

“If these essential elements were absent,” he asserted, “then, legally speaking, there was no criminal contempt—and therefore, no conviction.”

He further cautioned legal professionals and commentators to uphold accuracy in the use of legal terminology, especially when such terms could damage public perception of a person’s integrity or liberty.

“Even if a court erroneously used the word ‘conviction’ in a civil contempt setting, such a pronouncement would be appealable for mischaracterisation,” he said, referencing OGBUANYINYA v. OKUDO and Lord Denning’s ruling in Re Bramblevale Ltd.

In conclusion, Udemezue called for more responsible public discourse, emphasising that Senator Natasha, based on current evidence, has not been convicted of any criminal offence. He underscored the importance of factual clarity in safeguarding both the rule of law and reputational justice.

“Public commentary must be grounded in truth and legal precision. If new facts emerge indicating a criminal conviction, I will revise my stance. But as of today, there’s no legal basis for the claim.”