Human Rights Violations and Defamation in Nigerian Courts: A Case Study of Unoma Akpabio vs. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan

Human Rights Violations and Defamation in Nigerian Courts: A Case Study of Unoma Akpabio vs. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan

Introduction

In Nigeria’s evolving legal landscape, the intersection of human rights and defamation law has taken center stage in the high-profile dispute between Unoma Akpabio, wife of Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. Filed on March 1, 2025, at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja, Unoma’s dual lawsuits—alleging violations of fundamental rights and defamation—stem from Natasha’s public claims of sexual harassment by Godswill Akpabio. This case, still awaiting a hearing date, probes the delicate balance between constitutional protections, reputational safeguards, and freedom of expression, with far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s judiciary and political discourse.

Case Background

The controversy erupted following Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s February 28, 2025, interview on Arise News, where she alleged that Senate President Akpabio made sexual advances toward her, including during a 2023 visit to his Uyo residence. These claims followed her February 20 Senate floor protest over a unilateral change in her seating assignment, which she attributed to victimization after rejecting Akpabio’s overtures. Unoma Akpabio responded with two suits:

• Fundamental Rights Action (CV/814/25): Seeks a declaration that Natasha’s statements violated her family’s dignity under Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution and Articles 4 and 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, demanding ₦250 billion in damages and an injunction against further statements.
• Defamation Suit (CV/816/25): Requests ₦1 billion, a retraction, and a public apology, arguing Natasha’s unproven allegations tarnished the Akpabio family’s reputation.

Natasha countered with a ₦100 billion defamation suit against Akpabio and his aide, alongside a contempt application challenging her six-month Senate suspension on March 6, 2025, which she claims violated a March 4 court order.

Legal Framework

Human Rights Protections

Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (Chapter IV, Sections 33–46) and the African Charter (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9, 2004, enshrine fundamental rights, including dignity (Section 34(1)(a)) and protection against degrading treatment (African Charter, Articles 4–5). Unoma’s rights claim, invoking the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015, argues that Natasha’s statements caused “emotional and psychological abuse.” This novel argument—extending dignity protections to a public figure’s family—faces hurdles, as Nigerian courts typically limit such claims to direct victims. A favorable ruling could expand constitutional protections but risks chilling whistleblower speech.

Defamation Law

Defamation in Nigeria, rooted in common law and statutory provisions, requires a false, published statement causing reputational harm. Unoma alleges Natasha’s televised claims meet this threshold, seeking exemplary damages for their “ruinous effect.” Natasha may invoke truth or public interest defenses, as upheld in Okonkwo v. Okagbue (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) 301, but must substantiate her allegations—a challenge given the lack of corroborating evidence. Unlike U.S. law, which demands “actual malice” for public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964), Nigeria’s lower liability threshold heightens Natasha’s risk.

Procedural Developments

As of May 14, 2025, the FCT High Court has adjourned Natasha’s contempt suit to June 27, delaying related proceedings. The Senate’s Ethics Committee dismissed Natasha’s harassment petition on procedural grounds and upheld her suspension for “unruly behavior,” prompting accusations of bias from activists like Chioma Agwuegbo. Public polarization—split between viewing Natasha as a women’s rights advocate or an opportunist—underscores the case’s societal stakes.

Implications

1. Human Rights Jurisprudence: A ruling for Unoma on fundamental rights could broaden dignity protections, aligning Nigeria with international norms but potentially deterring criticism of public officials.
2. Free Speech and Defamation: The astronomical ₦250 billion and ₦1 billion damage claims, far exceeding precedents like ₦50 million in Dangote v. Punch Newspapers (2019), test proportionality. A high award could stifle political discourse, while dismissal might embolden unsubstantiated claims.
3. Gender and Power Dynamics: Natasha’s suspension, as one of four female senators in a 109-member chamber, has galvanized feminist critiques, highlighting systemic sexism in Nigerian politics.
4. Judicial Role: The case parallels disputes like Mike Ozekhome v. Inspector General of Police (2020), where rights clashed with reputational claims, challenging courts to uphold impartiality amid political pressures.

Conclusion

The Unoma Akpabio vs. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan case crystallizes Nigeria’s struggle to reconcile human rights with defamation law. As the judiciary navigates constitutional dignity, reputational remedies, and free expression, its ruling will shape precedents for accountability and gender equity in governance. With public trust and political integrity at stake, the outcome—still unfolding—promises to influence Nigeria’s legal and democratic trajectory.