Court Order on Natasha and Akpabio's Case: A Common Legal Sense »

Justice Binta Fatima Nyako of the Federal High Court presiding over the case of the suspended Senator, Natasha Akpoti gave an order on the 4th of April, 2025 stopping all the parties involved in the case filed by Natasha against her suspension, from engaging in media trial, interviews and live stream of the proceeding of the case. This order followed a concern raised by counsel to the Defendants, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), that the Plaintiff, Natasha is actively discussing the matter on social media platforms and interviews with the News Outlets.

The judge’s order is binding on all the parties in the case, both the Plaintiff and the Defendants, despite the fact that the issue was raised by the Counsel to the Defendants. It simply means that Natasha Akpoti, Senator Akpabio, and others should stop discussing the matter in public, social media, or interviews.

The Judge unequivocally ordered that “There shall be no press interviews by all parties and their lawyers as regards the subject matter of the case.” It is, however, surprising that the public was made to believe that Natasha was barred by the Court from speaking to the public. The supporters of the Plaintiff are promoting this narrative, which is, in essence, distorting the order of the Court just to once again gain the public’s sympathy and score a political goal.

The extant law is that where a matter is before the Court for trial or adjudication, all the parties involved are expected and prevented from taking the same matter to the public for discussion or consideration. This is to maintain the integrity of the Court and to avoid undue influence over the subject matter, to put it in legal terms, the matter is “subjudice”.

As a lawyer, which I believe the Plaintiff is, there is no point waiting for a Court order to understand this basic principle in law to desist from publicly discussing the subject of a matter already before the Court. This is a common legal sense that even a layman understands without being forced.

The culture or the attitude of always in the public to seek public validation and sympathy when you already have the same matter in the Court points to the fact that the person lacks emotional intelligence and is desperate to curry favor with the public to have an undue advantage over the other parties. This must be discouraged.

Written by

E.O. Shadrach, Esq, FICMC.