Akpabio Files ₦200bn Defamation Suit Against Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan, Legal Showdown Looms in 10th Senate
The President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, has instituted a fresh ₦200 billion defamation action against Senator Natasha Akpoti‑Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District.
Akpoti‑Uduaghan disclosed receipt of the suit in a social media post on Friday, attaching the originating processes in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3356/2025, pending before Justice U. P. Kekemeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. She noted that the development affords her an opportunity to ventilate her grievances before a judicial forum, having previously been denied audience by the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges.
In the suit, Akpabio alleges that Akpoti‑Uduaghan made false, malicious, and injurious statements portraying him as a “sexual predator,” thereby exposing him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule. He seeks substantial monetary damages, public retractions, and broadcast apologies across national media.
On 6 November 2025, the court granted an order for substituted service after bailiffs were unable to serve Akpoti‑Uduaghan personally. Service was subsequently effected through the Clerk of the National Assembly.
Reacting, Akpoti‑Uduaghan confirmed readiness for trial, insisting the case provides her the platform to prove allegations of sexual harassment and retaliatory conduct by the Senate President. She recalled that the Ethics Committee had declined to entertain her petition, citing a pending defamation suit previously filed by Akpabio’s spouse.
Her response has reignited debate over escalating tensions within the 10th Senate, with commentators describing the litigation as one of the most consequential political and legal confrontations between a Senate President and a sitting colleague.
It will be recalled that Akpoti‑Uduaghan was suspended for six months in March 2025 following her protest over the relocation of her seat during plenary. She had consistently accused Akpabio of targeting her, at one point describing him as a “dictator.” Though her suspension lapsed in September, she alleged further internal resistance delayed her resumption until her office was reopened by the Sergeant‑at‑Arms. Upon return, she defiantly maintained she had “no apology to tender,” asserting that dissent within the chamber was being stifled.
With both lawmakers now poised for a full trial on the merits, the matter has attracted significant public attention and is expected to test the boundaries of defamation law, legislative privilege, and political accountability in Nigeria.
