Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central, has filed a strong legal challenge against the Federal Government, dismissing the criminal defamation charges against her as politically motivated and alleging a double standard in enforcement.
Background & Charges
- The case was filed under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024 after Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello petitioned over statements she made during a public event in Ihima on April 4, 2025, and later in a television interview.
- In those remarks, Akpoti-Uduaghan alleged that Akpabio instructed Bello to have her killed—a claim her opponents say is false, malicious, and capable of inciting violence, violating public order.
- She was arraigned on June 20, 2025, under six counts, and pleaded not guilty. She was granted bail on self-recognition.
Legal Strategy & Defence Arguments
- On September 22–23, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s legal team, led by four Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), filed preliminary objections before both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
- Key objections include:
- Challenging jurisdiction — asking the courts to dismiss for lack of power to hear what she describes as a private defamation case.
- Asserting that the Attorney-General of the Federation lacks locus standi (legal standing) to prosecute defamation cases brought by private individuals.
- Claiming the charges infringe her constitutional right to free speech, pointing out the remarks were part of public discourse and media commentary.
- Alleging selective justice: that her earlier petitions (including threats to her life) were ignored while similar claims against her were fast-tracked.
Recent Update: Trial Rescheduled
- The trial, initially scheduled before now, has been adjourned to October 20, 2025, after her defence raised preliminary objections challenging both jurisdiction and the power of the prosecuting authority.
Broader Implications & Public Response
- Many opposition parties and civil society figures argue the case is politically motivated, aimed at silencing dissent rather than promoting justice.
- A coalition of women’s rights organisations has taken the matter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, accusing Senate leadership and the Federal Government of gender-based discrimination.
Why This Matter Matters
- The case tests the limits of Nigeria’s new laws like the Cybercrimes Act, especially in how they intersect with rights to free expression and defamation law.
- It raises serious questions about prosecutorial discretion, court jurisdiction in defamation vs. criminal law, and whether political figures can or should use criminal law for statements made in public political discourse.
- Key constitutional provisions being cited by Akpoti include Section 42 (equality before the law and non-discrimination) among others.
Related Articles
-
-
-
-
