However, the Senate President who is the 3rd defendant in the suit, on May 5 brought an application seeking an order of court, directing the suspended senator to delete the viral satirical letter from her Facebook page and also tender an apology to the court for violating the order barring her from speaking with the media.

Responding, Akpoti-Uduaghan in a counter affidavit filed on May 8, submitted that it was the third defendant who through his legal representatives, Chief Olisa Agbakoba and Monday Ubani both (SANs), that violated the orders of the court.

In defending the satirical letter, the plaintiff argued that whereas the issue before the court centred on her alleged unlawful suspension, her letter addressed to Akpabio and not the court was on her alleged sexual harassment by the Senate president.

In a 28-paragraph affidavit, the plaintiff claimed that the motion on notice was a strategy by Akpabio “to ambush me and foist an adjournment on the court’s scheduled proceedings of May 12, 2025.”

She said Akpabio’s actions form part of a series of calculated moves by him to frustrate the judicial process and ensure that, “I do not return to the Senate, thereby completing the term of my unlawful suspension without judicial resolution”.

Akpoti-Uduaghan further claimed that Akpabio by his alleged continued disobedience of court orders, while simultaneously seeking to invoke the Court’s contempt jurisdiction against her, was bringing the institution of the court to odium, and undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

“That the 3rd defendant’s application is not only malicious but if granted, would amount to rewarding contempt, encouraging procedural ambushes, and punishing my constituents by prolonging the void in representation at the Senate,” she added.

The Kogi senator accordingly urged the court to reject the application for being incompetent since it was aimed at gagging her right to freedom of expression and frustrate hearing in her suit before the court.

“The letter under reference was not addressed to the court, had no nexus with the subject matter before court when construed side-by-side the issues for determination and the relief sought.

“It is our submission that this application is an affront to the authority and majesty of the court. The 3rd defendant who brazenly flouted the orders of the honourable court made on March 4, 2025 in spite of clear evidence of knowledge of the said order and of April 4, 2025 respectively, has the audacity to bring this contraption seeking equitable reliefs.

“We submit that the 3rd defendant has not approached this honourable court with clean hands and as such should not be indulged by this court. The application is simply an attempt to change the normative of the case from the substance therein. The sole objective of the application is to foist an adjournment on court in a bid to further delay the determination of this matter on the merit,” she added.