Justice Binta Fatima Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja issued a comprehensive gag order Friday, prohibiting suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and all parties involved in their ongoing legal dispute from discussing the case publicly or granting media interviews.
The judicial restraint comes amid escalating tensions between the prominent political figures after Akpoti-Uduaghan allegedly conducted multiple television appearances discussing the pending lawsuit. The court’s decision marks a significant development in what has become one of Nigeria’s most closely watched political-legal confrontations of recent months.
There shall be no press interviews by all parties and their lawyers regarding the subject matter of the case,” Justice Nyako declared in her ruling, establishing clear boundaries for public discourse surrounding the contentious proceedings.
The restriction emerged during Friday’s court session when Kehinde Ogunwumiju, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and legal representative for Senate President Akpabio, raised formal complaints about Akpoti-Uduaghan’s media activities. According to Ogunwumiju, the suspended Senator had been “moving from one television house to another,” including appearances on international media giants BBC and CNN, discussing matters central to the ongoing litigation.
Justice Nyako’s ruling went beyond merely restricting traditional media engagements. The judge explicitly prohibited all parties from streaming court proceedings on social media platforms, effectively closing all digital avenues that might circumvent the spirit of the gag order.
The case itself has generated substantial public interest since its inception, pitting Akpoti-Uduaghan, a vocal and increasingly prominent political figure, against Akpabio, one of Nigeria’s most powerful legislative leaders. While specific details of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims against the Senate President and three other defendants remain subject to judicial consideration, the dispute appears to touch on fundamental questions of senatorial authority, parliamentary procedure, and political representation.
Legal experts observing the case suggest Justice Nyako’s unusual step of imposing comprehensive media restrictions reflects the potentially inflammatory nature of the dispute and concerns that public posturing could prejudice judicial proceedings. The decision aligns with growing judicial caution regarding the intersection of high-profile litigation and media coverage in Nigeria’s increasingly polarized political environment.
When cases involve prominent public figures and touch on matters of significant political interest, courts increasingly recognize the potential for media narratives to influence public perception and potentially undermine the integrity of judicial processes,” noted Dr. Folarin Adebayo, professor of constitutional law at the University of Lagos, when asked about the general trend of such restrictions. While press freedom remains sacrosanct, courts must balance that against the equally important principle of allowing legal matters to be resolved through proper judicial channels rather than in the court of public opinion.
For Akpoti-Uduaghan, the media restrictions represent a significant tactical limitation. The suspended Senator has built a reputation as a media-savvy political operator who effectively leverages both traditional and social media platforms to advance her positions. Her alleged appearances on international networks like BBC and CNN suggested a deliberate strategy to internationalize aspects of the dispute.
Meanwhile, Senate President Akpabio’s legal team has positioned the complaint about media appearances as a matter of procedural fairness. By securing the gag order, Akpabio’s representatives have effectively neutralized what they perceived as Akpoti-Uduaghan’s media advantage while ensuring that legal arguments remain confined to the courtroom.
The restriction also impacts the three other defendants named in the suit, whose identities and specific roles in the dispute remain subject to ongoing judicial proceedings. All parties, including their legal representatives, must now navigate the delicate balance between advocating for their positions within the courtroom while maintaining strict silence beyond its walls.
Justice Nyako’s dual prohibition—against both traditional media interviews and social media streaming—acknowledges the evolving landscape of public communication in political disputes. The comprehensive nature of the restriction recognizes that in contemporary Nigeria, political narratives develop across multiple platforms simultaneously, with traditional media interviews often amplified and recontextualized through social media dissemination.
The timing of the gag order comes at a particularly sensitive moment in Nigeria’s political calendar, with factional tensions in various political parties heightened and public attention increasingly focused on positioning ahead of future electoral contests. Against this backdrop, the dispute between Akpoti-Uduaghan and Akpabio has taken on symbolic significance beyond the specific legal questions at issue.
For the judiciary, the case presents a challenging balancing act between ensuring transparency in matters of public interest while preventing the weaponization of media coverage to influence ongoing legal proceedings. Justice Nyako’s decisive intervention suggests growing judicial awareness of how public narratives around high-profile cases can potentially compromise judicial independence and the integrity of court processes.
As the case proceeds under these new restrictions, observers will be watching closely for signs of compliance from all parties. The effectiveness of the gag order will depend largely on the court’s willingness to enforce violations through contempt proceedings or other judicial mechanisms.
The next scheduled hearing in the case will likely clarify procedural questions about how the restrictions will be implemented in practice and whether exceptions might exist for specific categories of public communication tangentially related to the dispute.
For now, however, the judicial mandate is clear: the battle between Akpoti-Uduaghan and Akpabio will be waged exclusively within the confines of the Federal High Court in Abuja, away from the glare of television cameras and the amplifying effect of social media platforms.
