A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Maitama, on Monday slated December 1 to hear a preliminary objection filed by the embattled Senator for Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, challenging the defamation charge the Federal Government brought against her.
In the charge marked CR/297/25, the Federal Government alleged that the defendant, who was earlier handed a six-month suspension by the Senate, made false and defamatory remarks during a live television program appearance.
The charge specifically accused Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan of making statements that tarnished the image of both the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.
Providing particulars of the offence in count one, the prosecution told the court that the alleged incident occurred on April 3, during a live broadcast on Channels Television’s Politics Today, when Akpoti-Uduaghan claimed that certain politicians, including Akpabio and Bello, were plotting to assassinate her.
According to the prosecution, the defendant committed an offence under Section 391 of the Penal Code, Cap 89, Laws of the Federation, 1990, punishable under Section 392 of the same law.
At Monday’s proceedings, the lawmaker, who has pleaded not guilty to the three-count charge, challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
Through her legal team, led by Mr. Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, the defendant urged the court to halt the commencement of the full trial pending the determination of the preliminary objection.
The defence argued that there had been an “abuse of prosecutorial powers” by the Attorney-General of the Federation, which stripped the court of jurisdiction to entertain the charge as constituted.
“This is not a challenge to the counts or elements of the offence, but a challenge to the validity of the action itself. Assuming the court agrees with us, there will be no need to proceed with the trial. This is a threshold matter,” Idahosa, SAN, insisted.
He further submitted that the prosecution’s proof of evidence did not include full extra-judicial statements of the proposed witnesses, containing only summaries. “We are entitled to full disclosure to prepare our defence,” the lawyer said.
Meanwhile, the prosecution’s lawyer, Mr. David Kaswe, told the court that although the prosecution had filed its response to the objection, it was not yet served on the defendant. He requested an adjournment to effect proper service.
“It will not be fair for the prosecution to insist that the matter proceeds while the defence has indicated that they will respond to our counter. In the circumstance, we are asking for a short adjournment to enable proper service on the defence,” Kaswe added.
While not opposing the adjournment request, the defendant’s counsel asked for a longer date, noting that members of his team were scheduled to attend the International Bar Association meeting in Canada.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Orji adjourned the matter to December 1 to hear the preliminary objection.
