Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and Ali Bello, a nephew of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, have remained in the spotlight due to their protracted legal battle.
Their face-off started with a tweet by the EFCC in March 2024, in which the anti-graft commission announced that it had filed a suit against the ex-Kogi governor for alleged N84bn fraud.
In a new development, the court dismissed Ali’s suit against Natasha, although the lawmaker was blamed for taking improper action against the former governor.
Abuja, FCT – The high court in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has struck out the violation of privacy suit filed against suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan, the lawmaker representing Kogi Central Senatorial District, by Ali Bello, nephew to former governor of the state, Yahaya Bello.
Justice Sylvanus Oriji of the trial court dismissed the suit over the failure of the plaintiff to prove that the lawmaker violated his fundamental rights to privacy as alleged.
How legal battle started between Natasha, Bello:
The Cable reported that the legal battle between the two followed a tweet by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in March 2024, in which the anti-graft commission announced that it had filed a suit against the former governor of Kogi state over an N84 billion fraud allegation.
eacting to the EFCC’s tweet through her handle at the time, Senator Natasha wrote:
“Dear @officialEFCC, why did you delete this post on Facebook after I commented and requested that you kindly help find my favourite storybook, ‘The Defeated White Lion’, at No. 1 Dala Hills street, off Agulu Lake street, Maitama, Abuja. That White House was among the 14 properties you approached the court for forfeiture in December 2022. Don’t delete this tweet. Thanks and God bless Nigeria.
In his ruling, Justice Oriji stated that three key issues were to be determined in the case, including whether the tweet constituted a violation of Bello’s privacy and that of his home. The judge further held that the relief sought against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan would be addressed.
Court dismisses Bello’s suit against Natasha:
While the court acknowledged Bello’s right to privacy, the judge dismissed his claims for a public apology and N1 billion in damages from the senator.
On the other hand, the court criticised Natasha for sharing the picture of the applicant’s house on social media, saying that her conduct was “improper”.
The judge said:
“It is improper, reprehensible, and unconscionable for a distinguished senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to post a picture of the applicant’s house and the house address in her X social media handle without just cause.
Judge’s statement echoes Nigeria’s data privacy laws :
Meanwhile, Legit.ng notes that the judge’s criticism of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan for sharing a photograph of Bello’s residence and its address on social media without just cause shows the importance of respecting individuals’ privacy rights, especially concerning the dissemination of personal information on public platforms.
For instance, Nigeria’s updated cybercrime law has introduced stronger protections against online harassment, including the unauthorised posting of personal information such as home addresses, in a move aimed at safeguarding digital privacy and curbing cyberstalking.
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act 2024 revises several sections of the 2015 law, narrowing the definition of cyberstalking and aligning data protection provisions with the Nigeria Data Protection Act.
Under the revised Section 24, the law criminalises the online dissemination of false or harmful information that could lead to public disorder or pose a threat to life.
Court fixes dates on Natasha’s suspension
Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan’s application against her suspension from the Senate has been scheduled for judgment on June 27.
In the application, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan told the court to invalidate her suspension, adding that it was a violation of the court order.
However, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and other defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court to meddle in the internal affairs of the Senate.
