KEY POINTS
- Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan challenges jurisdiction in defamation case.
- Defence claims abuse of prosecutorial power by the AGF.
- Court adjourns hearing on objection to December 1.
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, sitting in Maitama, has fixed December 1 to hear a preliminary objection filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of Kogi Central in her defamation trial.
The Federal Government had accused the lawmaker who was under a six-month suspension by the Senate of making false and damaging statements during a live television interview.
In the charge marked CR/297/25, prosecutors allege Akpoti-Uduaghan defamed Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello by claiming during a Channels Television program on April 3 that both politicians were plotting to assassinate her.
According to the government, the remarks violated Section 391 of the Penal Code and are punishable under Section 392. The senator has pleaded not guilty to all three counts.
Defence says case shows abuse of power
At Monday’s hearing, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, who leads Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team, urged the court to suspend trial proceedings until it rules on the objection.
He argued that the case represents “an abuse of prosecutorial powers” by the Attorney-General of the Federation, rendering the charge invalid. “This is not a challenge to the counts or elements of the offence but a challenge to the validity of the action itself,” Idahosa told the court.
He also faulted the prosecution’s evidence, noting that the proof of evidence lacked complete statements from proposed witnesses. “What was frontloaded were mere summaries,” he said. “We are entitled to full disclosure to prepare our defence.”
FG seeks adjournment for proper service
Prosecuting counsel David Kaswe confirmed that the government had filed its response to the objection but had yet to serve it on the defence. He requested an adjournment to ensure proper service.
Kaswe told the court, “It will not be fair to proceed when the defence has indicated its intention to respond to our counter.”
Defence counsel did not oppose the adjournment but asked for a long date, explaining that members of the legal team would attend the International Bar Association meeting in Canada. Justice Orji subsequently adjourned proceedings to December 1 for the hearing of the objection.
