By Sylvester Udemezue
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not speak on behalf of any individual or group, nor do I align myself with any party in the ongoing controversy involving Senator Natasha. My position is neutral and principled: I stand for all, in general, and more specifically for the rule of law, truth, and justice.
With due respect to all concerned, particularly some of our distinguished legal colleagues and commentators, I find it necessary to offer this clarification in the interest of legal accuracy, public enlightenment, and the integrity of legal discourse:
1. NO CRIMINAL CONVICTION TOOK PLACE IN NATASHA’S CASE: Contrary to some media headlines and public commentary, it appears that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has not been “convicted” of contempt. Under Nigerian law, a conviction can arise only from criminal proceedings, not civil processes. In NWOSU V. IMO STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 1 at 200, the Supreme Court of Nigeria reiterated that a conviction occurs when a criminal court, after a full trial, finds an accused person guilty of a criminal offence upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.
2. THE LEGAL MEANING OF “CONVICTION”: The term “conviction” has a precise legal meaning. It presupposes: (a). hat the person has been formally charged with a criminal offence (in this context, criminal contempt); (b). that criminal proceedings were initiated; (c). that the matter was prosecuted by the Attorney-General or a competent prosecuting authority; (d). that the prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, in accordance with section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Unless these elements are present, a finding of wrongdoing cannot properly be described as a “conviction.”
3. CIVIL VERSUS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT: Under Nigerian law, contempt of court is classified into civil contempt and criminal contempt. The distinction is not merely academic; it determines the procedure, the burden of proof, and the legal consequences. Civil contempt typically involves disobedience of a court order, and proceedings are quasi-civil in nature. The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities. See ODOGWU V. ODOGWU (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.225) 539. Criminal contempt, by contrast, consists of acts that obstruct the administration of justice, such as scandalizing the court or insulting a judge in open court. It is a criminal offence requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. See LEGAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE V. FAWEHINMI (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.7) 300.
4. A FAIR SUMMARY OF REPORTS OF WHAT HAPPENED IN SENATOR NATASHA’S CASE, ACCORDING TO FACTS AVAILABLE:
(a). The CTC of the judgment is yet to be made public but from all indications, and based on currently available public information, the pronouncement against Senator Natasha arose from proceedings seeking to enforce compliance with a court order, and not from a criminal prosecution for contempt.
(b). According to GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER of 09 June 2025, the contempt matter arose from an April 27, 2024, Facebook video by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, in which she issued a “sarcastic apology” to Senate President Godswill Akpabio, saying, “I’m sorry for the crime of maintaining dignity and self-respect.” Akpabio’s legal team, led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, filed a motion at the Federal High Court, Abuja, claiming the video violated an existing court order that barred Natasha from making public statements about her sexual harassment allegations against Akpabio. They requested the court to: (1). Order removal of the video from social media; (2). Compel a formal public apology from Natasha, and (3). Impose contempt sanctions. In response, Natasha’s legal team challenged the motion on three main grounds: (1). No breach of court order: The video was political satire, protected by free speech and not contemptuous; (2). Lack of clean hands: They argued Akpabio had also made prejudicial public statements and thus lacked the moral standing to seek equitable relief; (3). Procedural defects: They claimed the contempt proceedings were not properly initiated as required under Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, noting the absence of mandatory Forms 48 and 49. Natasha’s lawyers asked the court to dismiss the application, arguing that it lacked merit, moral standing, and procedural compliance. See: “Natasha denies violating court orders amid ongoing feud with Akpabio” by John Akubo (reporting); Guardian Nigeria, 9 May 2025.
(c). Thus, there is no record of: (a) A criminal charge sheet for contempt; (b). A formal arraignment; (c). A criminal trial; (d). A prosecution conducted by the Attorney-General or a recognized prosecuting authority. If these essential elements were absent, then (legally speaking) there was no criminal contempt and, consequently, no valid conviction. It is therefore puzzling where journalists, bloggers, and, more worryingly, lawyers obtained the claim that Natasha was “convicted.” With due respect, it is particularly troubling that legal practitioners and scholars are among those disseminating such inaccurate and misleading information
5. JUDICIAL TERMINOLOGY MUST BE ACCURATE: Even if a court, by inadvertence, used the word “conviction” in a civil contempt proceeding, such a pronouncement would be susceptible to being corrected on appeal, on grounds of procedural impropriety, mischaracterization, or jurisdictional error. Courts, like all human institutions, are not immune to error, and where errors of law are shown, they are subject to judicial correction. See OGBUANYINYA V. OKUDO (No.2) (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.146) 551.
6. LAWYERS AND SCHOLARS MUST USE TERMS CORRECTLY: It is the duty of lawyers, especially those in legal academia and public commentary, to maintain fidelity to legal terminology. Using the term “conviction” in this context is not only misleading but creates a false impression in the minds of the public. As Lord Denning once famously stated in Re Bramblevale Ltd [1970] 1 Ch. 128: “A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be proved BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.” This underscores that a true conviction for contempt cannot arise unless the process was criminal and the standard of proof satisfied.
7. FINAL WORD:
(a). It’s humbly submitted that Senator Natasha has not been convicted. She has, at most, been found liable for civil contempt, which, while serious, is not the same as a criminal conviction. It is crucial that public discourse on legal matters, particularly those involving the liberty and reputation of individuals, is grounded in truth and precision. If new facts emerge indicating that there was indeed a criminal prosecution culminating in conviction, I will be the first to adjust my view. But based on available facts, to refer to this as a conviction is legally untenable.
(b). Some may feel this is “a long story.” Perhaps it is. But when the issues are complex, the explanation must match in depth. The Latin maxim says, “Res ipsa loquitur” (meaning that the facts speak for themselves). While I agree that indeed the facts speak for themselves, I must add that sometimes, they need a bit of help. With due sense of respect, I’m openn to superior arguments on this.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue
08109024556.
lawmentorng@gmail.com.
(05 July 2025)
“History of Rivers State Judiciary: A Compendium of Personalities on the Bench.” Authored by Ampim Gogo Blankson, Esq., Deputy Director at the Rivers State Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the Rivers State Judiciary 💰 Cover Price: ₦20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) Bukky Law Books, Rivers State High Court Complex, Moscow Road, Port Harcourt – 📞 08034868754📞 08034729738📞 Enquiries: ______________________________________________________________________ "Democracy Or Demoncrazy?", "Good Governance" And "Politics And Political Class": Order Prof. Ozekhome's Essential Trilogy Now 
📞 Enquiries: +234 704 044 9375 | +234 814 813 4773 | +234 816 872 3532 📧 Email: educodexl@gmail.com Follow the voice of wisdom. Read Prof. Mike Ozekhome. Be inspired. Be enlightened. Be empowered. ___________________________________________________________________ Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!
To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
