Natasha defends satire apology to Akpabio, says court order not violated
By Jeffrey Agbo
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has countered claims that she violated a court order restraining her from granting interviews or posting on social media anything related to her sexual harassment claims against Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
The suspended Kogi Central senator stated this in a press release on Friday following Akpabio’s fresh suit demanding an apology for what he described as her tongue-in-cheek apology.
On April 27, Akpoti-Uduaghan shared a short video on her Facebook account in which she mockingly apologised to the former Akwa Ibom governor, stating that her only regret was not allowing him to have his way with her.
The senator stated that she was “sorry for the crime of maintaining dignity and self-respect” and for rejecting the advances of the Senate President, whom she implied believed no one could refuse him.
Infuriated by her perceived sarcasm, Akpabio, in a fresh application filed by his legal counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), asked an Abuja Federal High Court to order Akpoti-Uduaghan to delete the video, arguing that it violated the court’s directive.
Ogunwumiju also requested that the court order Akpoti-Uduaghan to remove the post from all her social media accounts.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, however, refuted the allegation in a counter-affidavit on Friday, arguing that her post did not violate the court’s gag order.
She said: “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 5 May 2025.
“My Facebook post of April 27, 2025, styled ‘Satirical Apology Letter,’ neither mentions this action nor references any matter sub judice; it is a 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 May 4, 2025, Mr Monday Ubani, SAN (counsel to the applicant), published a Facebook post commenting directly on these proceedings and vilifying me.
“That the instant motion is borne of malice and intended to harass, intimidate, and scandalise me for exercising my constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing and to free expression.”
