Senate President Godswill Akpabio has given a detailed explanation for initiating a ₦40 billion defamation lawsuit against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, stating that the action became necessary to protect his reputation and set the record straight after what he described as “grave and damaging allegations.”
Akpabio, through a formal statement released by his media team, said the lawsuit was triggered by public comments and claims allegedly made by Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, which he insists were false, malicious, and deliberately crafted to tarnish his name. According to him, the allegations—circulated widely on social platforms and in political discussions—had the potential to undermine public trust in his office and cast doubts on his integrity.
The Senate President explained that, as the head of the National Assembly, he has a responsibility to uphold the dignity of the office and ensure that misinformation is not allowed to flourish unchecked. He noted that public officials often face criticism, but when such criticism crosses into defamation, it becomes necessary to seek legal redress.
Akpabio maintained that the remarks attributed to Akpoti-Uduaghan were not only untrue but also capable of causing long-term harm if left unchallenged. He added that the suit was filed to ensure accountability and to send a signal that political disagreements must not be used as a platform for character assassination.
He further stated that the decision to demand ₦40 billion in damages reflects the severity of the reputational harm he believes he has suffered. According to him, the amount sought in court is meant to serve both as compensation and as a deterrent to public figures who may consider making unverified claims in the future.
Meanwhile, individuals close to Akpabio say the Senate President views the lawsuit as a matter of principle rather than personal retaliation. They emphasize that he intends to prove his case through proper legal channels while focusing on his legislative responsibilities.
The lawsuit has sparked mixed reactions among political observers. Some argue that public officials should exercise restraint and prioritize dialogue, while others believe the case underscores the growing need for responsible speech in the political space.
The matter is expected to proceed to court in the coming weeks, where both sides will have the opportunity to present their arguments before a judge.