Defamation Suit: Court shifts case against Natasha
Quick Read
Justice Chizoba Oji rescheduled the matter upon confirming that the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had written to request an adjournment. The new date was fixed for the hearing of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s preliminary objection.
The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Monday postponed proceedings in the criminal defamation suit filed against the Senator for Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, after the prosecution sought additional time.
Justice Chizoba Oji rescheduled the matter upon confirming that the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had written to request an adjournment. The new date was fixed for the hearing of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s preliminary objection.
The senator is currently facing a three-count charge of criminal defamation relating to her claim that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello allegedly conspired to have her killed.
In response, Akpoti-Uduaghan lodged a preliminary objection, insisting that the AGF’s decision to institute two separate suits—one before the FCT High Court and another before the Federal High Court—amounted to an abuse of court process.
The prosecution, however, maintained in a counter-affidavit that the charges were properly filed. It argued that the case arose from a “thorough and comprehensive investigation” and that the AGF acted squarely within constitutional powers. The prosecution added that all petitions submitted by the senator had been duly investigated, and the decision to proceed was informed by public interest and the need to curb legal misuse.
During Monday’s session, the senator’s counsel, Ehiogie West Idahosa, drew attention to the prosecution’s absence. Justice Oji then disclosed that she had received a letter requesting the adjournment and provided the defence with a copy.
Idahosa objected, stating that the request was incompetent because the defence was not notified at least 48 hours before the sitting, as required by procedure. He urged the court to hear the preliminary objection, stressing that his client was present and ready.
Although the judge agreed that the prosecution failed to meet the mandatory notice period, she ruled that adjourning the matter was necessary in the interest of justice. The court declined to proceed and adjourned the case until 23 February 2025.
Akpoti-Uduaghan attended the sitting alongside her husband.
Comments