by Eric Ikhilae, Abuja
A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Maitama on Tuesday came down hard on the suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (Kogi Central), for wrongful usage of her X (Twitter) platform.
Justice Sylvanus Oriji said it was wrong for a person of Natasha’s status, as a serving Senator to make wrong claims using her social media platform.
Justice Oriji said:
“Before I go further, the point must be made that it is improper, reprehensible and unconscionable for a distinguished Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to post the picture of the applicant’s house and the house address on her X social media page on the unfounded belief that the property belonged to Yahaya Bello, former Governor of Kogi State.
“Such conduct must be and is hereby deprecated by the court,” he said.
The judge made the comments while delivering judgment in a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Chief of Staff to the Governor of Kogi State, Ali Bello.
Bello had, in the suit, marked: FCT/HC/CV/2574/2024, claimed among others , that the publication of the pictures of his house and address in the Senator’s X-handle @Natashaakpoti on March 15, 2024 against the provisions of Section 37 of the Constitution.
He also claimed further that the respondent alleged in her social media post that he lodged former Governor of Kogi, Yahaya Bello, in the house he is living with his family when EFCC was looking for him.
Bello further claimed that the lawmaker equally alleged that the house, which he lives in Abuja, belonged to the former governor whom they call ”White Lion of Kogi.”
In his judgment on Tuesday, Justice noted that there were three issues to be resolved in the suit.
The first was “whether the publication on Natasha’s X-handle violated the applicant’s fundamental right to privacy under Section 37 of the Constitution.
The second: “Whether her petition to the Inspector General of Police on the ownership of the said property violated the applicant’s right.
The third: “Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought.”
The judge held that, publicity as the applicant claimed cannot be given to a house that is already in the public space, which can be seen by everyone.
“In the same vein, the post observed in the respondent’s ex-social media page would not be considered highly offensive to an objectively reasonable person,” he said.
Justice Oriji further held that the EFCC operatives did not invade Bello’s privacy at No. 1 Dala Hills, Maitama, Abuja, to look for the ex-governor following Natasha’s alleged claim that the ex-governor lodged in the apartment on her social media handle.
He also held that Natasha failed to establish her claim of the true ownership of the property stated in her tweets, which she allegedly claimed belonged to former Governor Yahaya Bello and that it was one of the properties in which EFCC obtained an interim order of forfeiture.
The judge added: “She also failed to establish her assertion that she had information that Yahaya Bello was in the said property at the time he was wanted by the EFCC.
“There is nothing before the court to show that the property belongs or belonged to Yahaya Bello, the former Governor of Kogi State.
“In the absence of any contrary proof by the respondent, the court accepts the applicant’s assertion that he is the owner of the property, that he lives there with his family, moreover at the visit to the locus in quo, the court confirmed that the applicant lived in the property with his family.
‘From all that I have said, the court agrees with the submission of the learned senior counsel for the applicant, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, that the respondent did not have any justification to make the publication or post on her X social media page, which she admitted meant that the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello was hiding at No 1 Dala Hills Maitama,” he said.
On the issue of the respondent’s publication, Justice Orji held that Section 37 of the Constitution provides both the privacy of citizens, their homes among others.
He added: “It appears to me that the right to privacy is not one of the fundamental rights which the courts are regularly called upon to advocate.
“It is correct that the applicant, like all other citizens, is entitled to the fundamental right guaranteed by Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
“Therefore, the applicant is entitled to this relief, which is a general declaration,” the judge said.
