.jpeg)
Chukwuemeka A. Nnabuife ACIS
INTRODUCTION
The intersection of human rights and defamation law in Nigeria has resurfaced with the high-profile legal battle between Unoma Godswill Akpabio, wife of Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. On March 1, 2025, Unoma Akpabio filed two lawsuits at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja, alleging that Senator Natasha’s claims of sexual harassment against her husband constituted both a violation of her family’s fundamental rights and defamation. This case exemplifies the complex interplay between constitutional protections, international human rights obligations, and Nigeria’s defamation laws, raising significant legal and societal questions about accountability, reputation, and justice.
UNDERSTANDING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION
Human rights are the fundamental rights and freedoms inherent to all individuals, irrespective of nationality, race, gender, religion, or any other status. They are universal, inalienable, and indivisible, meaning they apply to everyone, cannot be taken away (except in specific legal circumstances), and are interconnected (OHCHR, 2023) [1]. The concept is rooted in international frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations in 1948, which serves as a global standard for human rights protection (United Nations, 1948) [2].
PROVISIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION
The Nigerian Constitution of 1999 (as amended) provides for fundamental human rights under Chapter IV, Sections 33 to 46 [3]. These rights are legally enforceable and are designed to protect the dignity and freedoms of individuals within Nigeria. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, domesticated in Nigeria through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, further reinforces these protections. Article 4 of the Charter guarantees the right to life and the integrity of the person, while Article 5 prohibits all forms of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. By domesticating the Charter, Nigeria has committed to upholding these international standards, making them enforceable in its courts.
DEFAMATION
Defamation involves making false statements about a person that can injure the reputation of the person.www.merriam-webster.com [7].
It’s considered a violation of the right to reputation, protected under Article 12 of the UDHR, which safeguards against attacks on honour and reputation. Defamation is also recognized as a potential violation of human rights, specifically the right to reputation, protected under Article 12 of the UDHR: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." To prove defamation legally, one must show the statement was false, shared with others, and caused reputational harm.
An unexpected detail is that defamation can intersect with human rights, especially when laws punish it in ways that restrict free speech, like in a notable case in the Philippines where a broadcaster was jailed for libel, ruled a human rights violation by the UN.
Defamation is a specific type of communication that injures a third party's reputation by concept is rooted in tort law and varies by jurisdiction, but a general definition is provided by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, stating that defamation requires a false statement presented as fact, published to a third party, with making false statements, either in written form (libel) or spoken form (slander). This fault (at least negligence), and causing reputational damage (www.law.cornell.edu) [8]. In the US, for example, state laws govern defamation, with differences in standards for proving damages and the threshold for public figures, who face a higher bar due to First Amendment protections.
INTERSECTION OF DEFAMATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
The connection between defamation and human rights violations is particularly evident when defamation laws are used to suppress free speech, a core human right under Article 19 of the UDHR. A notable case illustrating this intersection occurred in the Philippines, where a broadcaster was convicted of libel and jailed for over two years for dramatizing a newspaper report about a former speaker, Prospero Nograles. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 34, found this conviction incompatible with freedom of expression under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ordering the Philippine government to provide a remedy, including compensation for time served (www.wikipedia.org) [9]. This case, reported in January 2012 by The Manila Times, underscores that criminalizing defamation can lead to human rights violations, especially when it results in imprisonment, which international bodies argue should be a civil matter rather than criminal.
Front Line Defenders, an organization supporting human rights defenders, also notes that defamation should not be criminally punishable, emphasizing that civil law is sufficient to protect reputation, and criminal defamation laws often target journalists and activists, further linking it to human rights concerns (www.frontlinedefenders.org) [10].
BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
The legal dispute stems from statements made by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central, during a televised interview on Arise News on February 28, 2025, and earlier remarks on the Senate floor on February 20, 2025 (www.arise.tv) [11].
Natasha alleged that Senate President Godswill Akpabio made sexual advances toward her, including during a visit to his residence in Uyo on December 8, 2023, in the presence of her husband. She further claimed that Akpabio victimized her in the Senate—such as by changing her seating position without consent—after she rejected his overtures. These accusations sparked a public uproar, prompting Unoma Akpabio to seek judicial redress.
Unoma filed two suits: a fundamental rights action (Suit No: CV/814/25) [12] and a defamation lawsuit (Suit No: CV/816/25) [13]. In the former, she seeks a declaration that Natasha’s statements violated her family’s rights under Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) [14], which guarantees the right to dignity, and Articles 4 and 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which protect the integrity of the person and prohibit degrading treatment. She also requested ₦250 billion in damages and a perpetual injunction against further statement (“Akpabio’s Wife Sues Senator Natasha For Defamation, Seeks ₦250 Billion In Damages,” Naija News, March 1, 2025, www.naijanews.com.) [15].
In the defamation suit, she demanded ₦1 billion in punitive damages, a retraction, and an apology published in two national newspapers, arguing that Natasha’s unproven allegations tarnished her family’s reputation.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK: HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEFAMATION IN NIGERIA
Human Rights Violations under Section 34 and the African Charter Section 34(1)(a) [16] of the Nigerian Constitution states:
“Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly, no person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.”
Similarly, Article 4 of the African Charter guarantees the inviolability of human integrity, while Article 5 prohibits actions that degrade or dehumanize individuals. Unoma Akpabio’s suit contends that Natasha’s public accusations caused “emotional and psychological abuse” and instilled “constant threat and fear” in her family, constituting a breach of these protections. She invokes Section 14 of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015 which addresses emotional and psychological harm, to bolster her claim.
This argument hinges on the interpretation of dignity as a collective right extending to the family of an accused individual. If successful, it could set a precedent for broadening the scope of constitutional protections in defamation-related human rights cases. However, Nigerian courts have historically been cautious in extending such rights beyond direct victims, and Natasha’s legal team may counter that her statements targeted Godswill Akpabio, not Unoma or their children, thus weakening the fundamental rights claim.
DEFAMATION UNDER NIGERIAN LAW
Defamation in Nigeria, governed by both common law principles and statutory provisions, requires proof that a statement is false, damaging to reputation, and published to a third party without lawful justification. Unoma Akpabio asserts that Natasha’s allegations, made without evidence on national television, meet these criteria, bringing her family “into disrepute and opprobrium.” She seeks exemplary damages to reflect the “ruinous effect” on their reputation, a remedy recognized under Nigerian law for egregious falsehoods.
Natasha, however, may invoke the defence of truth or the public interest, arguing that her statements were factual or aimed at exposing misconduct by a public official. Nigerian courts have occasionally upheld such defences, as seen in Okonkwo v. Okagbue (1994) [17], where the Supreme Court emphasized that truth can negate defamation liability. The burden lies with Natasha to substantiate her claims—a challenging task given the lack of public corroboration thus far.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Precedent on Human Rights in Defamation Cases: If the court rules in Unoma’s favour on the fundamental rights claim, it could expand the application of Section 34 and the African Charter to indirect victims of public statements. This would align Nigerian jurisprudence more closely with international human rights norms but might also discourage whistleblowers from speaking out against powerful figures, fearing collateral liability. Defamation and Public Figures: The defamation suit tests the balance between protecting reputation and safeguarding free expression, especially concerning public officials. Nigerian law does not fully adopt the U.S. “actual malice” standard from New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which requires proof of intent to harm public figures. A ruling against Natasha could reinforce a lower threshold for defamation claims, potentially chilling criticism of politicians.
Damages and Proportionality: The ₦250 billion and ₦1 billion claims are unprecedented in scale for Nigerian defamation cases. Courts typically award modest sums e.g., ₦50 million in Dangote v. Punch Newspapers (2019) [18] raising questions about whether such astronomical damages are proportionate or punitive. An excessive award could deter free speech, while a dismissal might embolden false accusers. Aftermath and Societal Impact: As of March 1, 2025, the court has yet to fix a hearing date, leaving the case’s outcome uncertain. However, its aftermath is already unfolding. The Senate referred Natasha’s initial protest over her seat change to its Ethics Committee, signalling internal repercussions, while she countered with a ₦100 billion defamation suit against Akpabio and his aide, Mfon Patrick. Public reaction is polarized: some view Natasha as a courageous advocate for women, while others see her claims as opportunistic.
The case highlights systemic issues in Nigeria, including gender dynamics in politics and the judiciary’s role in balancing rights. It also underscores the tension between human rights protections and defamation laws, a recurring theme in cases like Mike Ozekhome v. Inspector General of Police (2020), where constitutional rights clashed with reputational claims. The resolution could influence how Nigerian courts adjudicate similar disputes, particularly those involving high-profile figures.
CONCLUSION
The Unoma Akpabio vs. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan case encapsulates the delicate interplay between human rights and defamation in Nigeria. It challenges the judiciary to clarify the scope of constitutional protections under Section 34 and the African Charter while addressing the reputational harm alleged in defamation claims. Whatever the outcome, this lawsuit will likely shape legal precedents, public discourse, and the boundaries of accountability in Nigerian governance.
Footnotes
[1] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2023). What are Human Rights? Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights.
[2] United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
[3] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended). Available at: [Official Gazette of Nigeria].
[4] Universal Declaration of Human Rights. www.un.org/
[5] United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) www.ohcr.org
[6] Human Rights Watch. www.hrw.org
[7] Merriam Webster. www.merriam-webster.com
[8] Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School.www.law.cornell.edu
[9] Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.org
[10] Frontline Defenders.www.frontlinedefenders.org
[11] Arise Tv. www.arise.tv
[12] “A DECLARATION that the allegations made by the Respondent… constitute a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of the Applicant guaranteed under Section 34(1)(a) of The Constitution…” – Unoma Akpabio’s fundamental rights suit (Suit No: CV/814/25).
[13] “The Defendant’s act of claiming on national television… has damaged the reputation of the Claimant and indeed her entire family…” – Unoma Akpabio’s defamation suit (Suit No: CV/816/25).
[14] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 34(1)(a).
[15] “Akpabio’s Wife Sues Senator Natasha For Defamation, Seeks ₦250 Billion In Damages,” Naija News, March 1, 2025, www.naijanews.com.
[16] Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015, Section 14.
[17] Okonkwo v. Okagbue (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) 301 – Nigerian Supreme Court on defamation defences.
[18] Dangote v. Punch Newspapers (2019) – Example of defamation damages in Nigeria.
No comments
Post a Comment