A High Court sitting in Lokoja has ordered Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to pay ₦1 billion in damages to former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello, following a defamation suit that has attracted significant attention within political and legal circles.
The judgment, delivered by Justice A. S. Ibrahim, was dated April 23 and detailed in a Certified True Copy made available after proceedings. The court ruled in favour of Bello, concluding that the claims brought before it were supported by credible evidence.
The case, marked HCL/16/2023, centred on statements allegedly made by Akpoti-Uduaghan during a televised interview aired on November 4, 2022, on The Morning Show, a programme broadcast by Arise TV. In the interview, the senator reportedly made remarks describing Bello in highly critical terms, which the former governor argued were damaging to his reputation.
In his ruling, Justice Ibrahim held that the statements made during the broadcast were defamatory and lacked justification. The court found that the comments went beyond permissible criticism and constituted a direct attack on Bello’s character.
“The interview granted by the defendant on 4/11/2022 on Arise TV programme of ‘The Morning Show’ is defamatory to the claimant’s character and reputation,” the judge ruled.
“The said interview of 4/11/2022 in which the defendant described the claimant as a murderer, killer, perpetrator of evil acts, and a terror to the people of Kogi State was without justification.”
Beyond awarding damages, the court also issued a perpetual injunction restraining Akpoti-Uduaghan and her associates from making further defamatory statements against Bello across any media platform. The order effectively prohibits any repetition of similar remarks in the future.
“The sum of one billion naira (N1,000,000,000) only is awarded as damages against the Defendant and in favour of the Claimant,” the court declared.
The legal dispute arose after Bello approached the court, arguing that the statements made during the interview had severely harmed his public image and standing. He maintained that the allegations were false and damaging, warranting legal redress.
During the course of the trial, counsel to the defendant, Johnson J. Usman, SAN, challenged the jurisdiction of the court, contending that the suit constituted an abuse of court process. He argued that the matter should not have been entertained by the trial court.
However, Bello’s counsel, Friday Ekpa, opposed the objection, insisting that the case was properly filed and that the court had the authority to adjudicate on the matter. The trial court ultimately dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, affirming its competence to hear the suit.
Dissatisfied with that decision, Akpoti-Uduaghan escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the ruling on jurisdiction. The appeal, filed under suit number CA/ABJ/CV/626/2024, was later dismissed by the appellate court, which upheld the earlier decision and confirmed that the Kogi State High Court had the jurisdiction to preside over the case.
With the appellate court’s ruling reinforcing the authority of the trial court, the case proceeded to final judgment, culminating in the ₦1 billion damages award and the issuance of the injunction.
Legal analysts say the ruling highlights the judiciary’s stance on defamation, particularly in cases involving public figures and statements made in the media. While freedom of expression remains a fundamental right, the judgment underscores that such freedom must be exercised within the bounds of the law, especially where reputational harm is concerned.
The decision is also expected to have broader implications for political discourse, as it reinforces the need for caution and responsibility in public statements, particularly during interviews and media engagements.
As of the time of filing this report, there has been no official public reaction from Akpoti-Uduaghan regarding the judgment or whether she intends to pursue further legal action. Similarly, Bello has not issued a detailed statement beyond the court proceedings.
The case, however, is likely to remain a reference point in discussions around defamation law, media responsibility, and political communication in Nigeria, especially given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the substantial damages awarded.
