Natasha, not convicted on contempt case — Legal expert
Within the wake of swirling media headlines and on-line commentary alleging that Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has been “convicted” of contempt of court, a main honest command, Mr. Sylvester Udemezue, has issued a detailed clarification debunking such reports as mistaken and legally misleading.
Talking in a deepest capability in an announcement released on Saturday, Udemezue—a respected honest student and rule of law recommend—wired that there'll not be the least bit times a evidence of a criminal conviction towards Senator Natasha, contrary to long-established public impressions. In accordance with him, what transpired in court does not meet the honest threshold of a “conviction” as defined under Nigerian law.
“Conviction arises fully from a criminal trial, after prosecution has proven guilt beyond sensible doubt,” he said, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in NWOSU v. Imo Explain Self sustaining Electoral Price and other connected circumstances.
He defined that contempt of court in Nigeria is divided into civil and criminal categories, every carrying utterly different implications. Civil contempt, the style reportedly interested by Natasha’s case, entails disobedience of a court instruct and is dealt with through quasi-civil lawsuits, where proof depends on the steadiness of probabilities, not the greater usual of beyond an sensible doubt required in criminal matters.
Udemezue described the events ensuing in the court’s pronouncement, referencing a video posted by Senator Natasha on April 27, 2024, wherein she issued a sarcastic apology to Senate President Godswill Akpabio. The video, perceived by Akpabio’s honest group as defiance of an earlier court instruct, triggered a circulation for contempt filed on the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Nonetheless, Natasha’s honest representatives argued the video used to be political satire correct by free speech and failed to breach any court directive. As well they pointed out procedural defects in the circulation and claimed Akpabio himself had made prejudicial statements that undermined his honest standing.
Udemezue current that from obtainable info—alongside side media reports and honest filings—there'll not be the least bit times a indication that: a criminal cost used to be filed towards Senator Natasha;
A proper arraignment took spot; the Attorney-Classic or any recognised prosecuting physique conducted a prosecution; a finding of guilt used to be reached through criminal trial procedures.
“If these valuable parts had been absent,” he asserted, “then, legally speaking, there used to be no criminal contempt—and therefore, no conviction.”
He further cautioned honest professionals and commentators to uphold accuracy in the usage of honest terminology, in particular when such terms could probably perhaps injury public perception of a person’s integrity or liberty.
“Even though a court erroneously former the note ‘conviction’ in a civil contempt environment, this kind of pronouncement could probably perhaps be appealable for mischaracterisation,” he said, referencing OGBUANYINYA v. OKUDO and Lord Denning’s ruling in Re Bramblevale Ltd.
In conclusion, Udemezue known as for more guilty public discourse, emphasising that Senator Natasha, basically based utterly on most up-to-date evidence, has not been convicted of any criminal offence. He underscored the significance of magnificent clarity in safeguarding every the guideline of law and reputational justice.
“Public commentary needs to be grounded truly and honest precision. If original info emerge indicating a criminal conviction, I'll revise my stance. Nonetheless as of on the present time, there’s no honest basis for the claim.”
