The Certified True Copy (CTC) of a recent Federal High Court judgment has clarified a key detail regarding Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s contempt case.
Newsonspot reports that contrary to media reports, the court did not order her to apologise to the Nigerian Senate but solely to the court.
Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, in a ruling delivered on July 4, 2025, found the Kogi Central senator guilty of contempt of a subsisting court order. As punishment, she was ordered to pay a fine of ₦5 million and publish a public apology to the court in two national dailies and on her Facebook page.
Read This: Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Removed from Senate Committee Leadership by Akpabio…
This ruling was made in response to a case filed by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan challenging her suspension from the Senate. In the same judgment, Justice Nyako directed the Senate to recall the senator and allow her to resume representing her constituents.
However, following the ruling, The Nation newspaper reported on July 5 that Senator Adeyemi Adaramodu, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, stated that the Senate would only consider her recall after she had issued an apology – suggesting it was owed to the Senate.
Senator Adaramodu was quoted as saying:
“The court has not ousted the Senate’s statutory right to punish any erring senator… Once she does what the court has directed, the Senate will sit and determine how to deal with her matter.”
Yet, the CTC of the judgment, dated July 11 and obtained by SaharaReporters, makes it clear: The apology is exclusively to the court, and nowhere did the judge link the apology to her recall by the Senate. The document was issued by the court’s Registrar, Kanu Ngozi, and signed by Ifeanacho Amarachi.
Specifically, Order 2 of the court ruling states:
“That having found that the Plaintiff acted in breach of this court’s subsisting order, the Plaintiff must take responsibility for her action… An order is hereby made for the Plaintiff to pay a fine of ₦5 million to the Federal Government Treasury and to publish a public apology to the court…”
This clarification nullifies any interpretation suggesting that the Senate was the intended recipient of the apology or that her recall was conditional upon it.
