Natasha to Agbakoba – “Only court can assess my case against Akpabio”
Kogi central senator, Natasha Akpoti- Uduaghan has responded to the public comments by Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) on her case with Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
Agbakoba, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) had in a letter dated April 14, 2025 addressed to Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, demanded a retraction of her sexual harassment allegation against Akpabio.
He asked Natasha to provide evidence supporting her claim that Akpabio sexually harassed her on December 8, 2023.
Responding to the letter dated April 30, Natasha denied receiving any letters from Agbakoba.
“I place it on formal record that no such letters have ever been served upon me by post, courier, or personal delivery. The imputation of recalcitrance is therefore inoperative.”
She said she had maintained silence out of respect for the doctrine of lis pendens — a legal principle that discourages public commentary on matters before the courts.
She explained that two suits are currently pending: one initiated by Akpabio’s wife at the FCT high court demanding N250 billion in damages, and another filed by her at the federal high court in Abuja, challenging her suspension from the senate.
“While Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/384/2025 is unrelated to the sexual harassment allegations I made against the President of the Senate, Suit No. CV/816/2025 is directly related to the allegations of sexual harassment instituted by your client’s spouse, on which issues have been joined,” she said.
“It is improper for any party to make extrajudicial comments.”
She also criticized Agbakoba for what she described as double standard, noting that his client’s legal team had relied on the sub judice rule to block a senate investigation, yet had now resorted to the media to demand answers.
“A litigant may not approbate in the courts and reprobate in the press,” she said
On her six-month suspension from the senate, Natasha accused Akpabio of presiding over his own case and denying her fair hearing, in violation of natural justice principles.
“Nemo judex in causa sua: no one ought to be judge in his own cause,” she wrote.
She also dismissed suggestions that her past interactions with Akpabio amounted to contradictions in her complaint, saying civility should not be mistaken for consent or comfort.
“To do so trivialises a serious concern of sexual harassment, especially in a workplace using a dominant position,” she said.
“The nature of your demand for evidence in this manner, at the instance of your client, simply indicates a broader misconception of what truly amounts to sexual harassment as prescribed in several global protocols.”
Natasha maintained that Agbakoba had no legal authority to demand that she substantiate her claims outside the court process.
“A private legal practitioner, however distinguished, is not vested with adjudicatory authority under the Constitution or any statute of the Federal Republic,” she said.
She further urged Agbakoba to advise his client on the implications of presiding over proceedings in which he is personally involved.
“I respectfully invite you to provide your client with a comprehensive advisory that addresses the entirety of the factual matrix.
“I stand by my complaint as lodged on 28th February 2025 and as pleaded in my Defence and Counter-Claim in CV/816/25,” she said.
“This letter is issued solely to correct the public record and to prevent a constructive admission being inferred from silence.”
She asked that any future correspondence be directed through her lawyers.
End.
