The lawmaker representing Kogi Central, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, on Monday, launched a legal offensive against the Federal Government, describing the criminal defamation charges filed against her as a brazen act of political persecution.
The senator, who has been an outspoken critic of a former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, is currently facing a six-count charge before the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The charges, filed under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, were brought following petitions by Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Bello over remarks she allegedly made during a public address and a television interview.
Her arraignment on June 20 drew national attention, with many opposition figures alleging that the case was politically motivated.
She was granted bail on self-recognition after pleading not guilty. The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, is being prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar.
In her defence on Monday, Akpoti-Uduaghan filed preliminary objections before both the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal High Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the courts and insisting that the Attorney-General of the Federation has no locus standi to prosecute what she described as a private defamation case.
Her legal team, led by four Senior Advocates of Nigeria—Prof. Roland Otaru, SAN; Dr. E. West-Idahosa, SAN; J.J. Usman, SAN; and M.J. Numa, SAN—argued that the charges were ‘unconstitutional, frivolous, and designed to intimidate opposition voices’.
The defence further submitted exhibits showing that her comments fell within the ambit of public discourse and media commentary, noting that prosecuting her statements as crimes was inconsistent with democratic norms.
Her lawyers maintained that ‘Defamation matters are inherently civil in nature and that attempting to criminalise them constitutes intimidation, suppresses free speech, and represents a misuse of the criminal justice system’.
Akpoti-Uduaghan also accused the authorities of selective justice, alleging that while her petitions over threats to her life by the complainants were ignored, the same institutions hastily filed charges against her.
She contends that the disparity represents a violation of her constitutional rights, ‘particularly Section 42, and represents discriminatory prosecution because of my opposition political affiliation’.
The charges centre on her claim that Akpabio allegedly instructed Bello to have her killed in Kogi State—a statement she reportedly made at a public gathering in Ihima on 4 April 2025, and later repeated during a television interview.
Prosecutors say the remarks were false, malicious, and capable of inciting violence, endangering lives, and breaching public order.
Her defence team has urged the courts to dismiss the charges at the preliminary stage, warning that allowing the matter to proceed would not only waste taxpayers’ resources but also undermine the credibility of the justice system.
Her strong pushback comes just hours after the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned the matter to 20 October, following an objection raised by her counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN.
