“A private legal practitioner, however distinguished, is not vested with adjudicatory authority under the Constitution or any statute of the Federal Republic,” was the prompt riposte from Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senator representing Kogi Central at the National Assembly to Olisa Agbakoba, lawyer to Senate President, Godswill Akpabio.
Agbakoba, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and former President of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), had written to female Senator, one in the four in the current 10th NASS, demanding a retraction or provide evidence supporting her claim that Akpabio sexually harassed her on December 8, 2023.
But in her own response dated April 30, Akpoti-Uduaghan, who denied receiving any previous letters him on the matter, fired back at the ex-NBA boss, saying he lacked the locus to adjudicate on the matter but it was even double standard for him to make the matter a media issue, which she had clearly avoided lately.
She wrote: “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.
“I had maintained silence out of respect for the doctrine of lis pendens — a legal principle that discourages public commentary on matters before the courts. 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, it is improper for any party to make extrajudicial comments.”
Recalling how Akpabio’s legal team had relied on the sub judice rule to block a Senate investigation, she wondered why the same team would now be resorting to the media to demand answers, adding: “A litigant may not approbate in the courts and reprobate in the press.”
Accusing Akpabio of presiding over his own case and denying her fair hearing, in violation of natural justice principles of Nemo judex in causa sua: no one ought to be judge in his own cause, 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. 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.”
She further urged Agbakoba to advise his client on the implications of presiding over proceedings in which he is personally involved, saying: “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. This letter is issued solely to correct the public record and to prevent a constructive admission being inferred from silence.”