In a dramatic legal showdown that underscores the growing tension between Nigeria’s political heavyweights, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Nwaebonyi over statements made during a televised interview on March 6, 2025.
The lawsuit, initiated by her legal team led by renowned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Michael Jonathan Numa, SAN, stems from what the Senator describes as a “malicious and calculated attempt” to tarnish her name. According to court documents, the statements in question were made by Mr. Nwaebonyi during an appearance on *Channels TV’s Sunrise Daily*, one of the country’s most-watched morning shows.
During the broadcast, Nwaebonyi allegedly referred to Senator Natasha as a “gold digger,” a “habitual liar,” and a “habitual blackmailer”—words that have now ignited a full-blown legal battle.
The suit, filed under case number CV/1359/25 at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Abuja, characterizes the remarks as “false, malicious, defamatory, and actionable per se.” Senator Natasha contends that the statements not only lacked any basis in truth but also caused her significant reputational harm.
In her statement of claim, the suspended Senator argued that Nwaebonyi’s public utterances inflicted emotional distress and humiliation, severely damaging her credibility among constituents and the broader public. Her lawyers insist that such unguarded accusations, broadcast to millions nationwide, have diminished her stature and cast doubts on her character.
The lawsuit was brought before the court via a Writ of Summons filed under Order 2 Rule 2 of the *FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2025*, officially lodged on April 7, 2025.
Senator Natasha is now asking the court to issue a declaration that Nwaebonyi’s comments do not constitute protected speech under the guise of freedom of expression. Her legal team maintains that while the Nigerian Constitution upholds freedom of speech, it does not extend to slanderous and injurious statements made with reckless disregard for the truth.
As the case proceeds, it is likely to draw considerable public attention—not only for the personalities involved but also for the legal implications surrounding freedom of speech and accountability in public discourse.
About the Author
