Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan vs. Akpabio: Rejecting Bad-Faith Settlements to Defend Accountability and Democratic Integrity
2 min read
-By Eculaw Media
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s principled rejection of an out-of-court settlement proposal from Senator Akpabio’s legal team underscores a critical defense against bad-faith litigation tactics. While alternative dispute resolution is often commendable, its integrity collapses when wielded as a tool to evade accountability, suppress victims, or undermine public interest.
The request for settlement reeks of hypocrisy and malice, arriving after Akpabio and his allies—notably Senators Karimi and Nwaebonyi—orchestrated a campaign of defamation to tarnish Akpoti-Uduaghan’s reputation. To demand she forfeit her legal recourse under these circumstances is not merely disingenuous; it is a cynical ploy to legitimize their misconduct and silence dissent. True reconciliation cannot coexist with ongoing persecution: How can Akpabio claim sincerity while Akpoti-Uduaghan remains illegally suspended, stripped of her parliamentary rights and salary?
Any credible settlement must begin with immediate restitution. Akpabio’s camp must:
1. Rescind the unlawful suspension, reinstating Akpoti-Uduaghan to her Senate role with full privileges;
2. Issue a public apology, acknowledging the defamation and procedural abuses;
3. Demonstrate material accountability for harm inflicted.
Until these conditions are met, the settlement overture stands exposed as a performative gesture—an attempt to manipulate judicial processes while perpetuating injustice. The public interest demands transparency, not backroom deals that absolve powerful actors of consequences.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s refusal to capitulate sets a vital precedent: Victims of institutional bullying must not be coerced into complicity. If Akpabio desires resolution, let him act—not bargain. Until then, the courtroom remains the sole arena where truth and justice can prevail.
Amplified Implications:
– Bad-faith settlements weaponize legal frameworks to shield perpetrators, not resolve grievances.
– Proposing mediation *during* ongoing harm (e.g., suspension) reveals contempt for both the victim and the rule of law.
– Public figures who abuse power to sidestep accountability risk eroding trust in democratic institutions.
This case transcends personal dispute—it is a litmus test for integrity in governance. The court must now weigh not just defamation, but the systemic rot that enables such brazen impunity.
