Sexual harassment: I didn’t violate any court docket order, Natasha defends satire apology

The suspended lawmaker representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, on Friday, dismissed the allegation that she had violated a court docket order restraining her from granting interviews or posting something associated to her sexual harassment claims in opposition to the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, on social media.

Natasha was responding to Akpabio’s contemporary swimsuit demanding an apology for what he described as her tongue-in-cheek apology.

On April 27, Akpoti-Uduaghan shared a brief video on her Fb account through which she mockingly apologised to the previous Akwa Ibom governor, stating that her solely remorse was not permitting him to have his means along with her.

The senator acknowledged that she was “sorry for the crime of sustaining dignity and self-respect”, and for rejecting the advances of the Senate President, whom she implied believed nobody may refuse him.

Infuriated by her perceived sarcasm, Akpabio, in a contemporary utility filed by his authorized counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, requested an Abuja Federal Excessive Courtroom to order Akpoti-Uduaghan to delete the video, arguing that it violated the court docket’s directive.

Ogunwumiju additionally requested that the court docket order Akpoti-Uduaghan to take away the publish from all her social media accounts.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, nevertheless, refuted the allegation in a counter-affidavit on Friday, arguing that her publish didn’t violate the court docket’s gag order.

She mentioned: “I state that the allegations contained therein are deceptive, inaccurate, and don’t replicate the true state of affairs.

“That, save as are herein expressly admitted, I deny each allegation, assertion, conclusion, insinuation, and averment contained within the affidavit in assist of the Movement on Discover dated 5 Could 2025.

“My Fb publish of April 27, 2025, styled ‘Satirical Apology Letter,’ neither mentions this motion nor references any matter sub judice; it’s a political satire on patriarchal norms within the legislature and is protected speech below Part 39(1) of the Structure.

“The publish didn’t (and couldn’t) prejudice these proceedings. No proof of precise or seemingly prejudice has been equipped by the applicant.

“On Could 4, 2025, Mr Monday Ubani, SAN (counsel to the applicant), revealed a Fb publish commenting straight on these proceedings and vilifying me.

“That the moment movement is borne of malice and meant to harass, intimidate, and scandalise me for exercising my constitutionally assured proper to a good listening to and to free expression.”