Court Adjourns Hearing On Senator Natasha’s Objection To Defamation Charges To December 1

Senate’s Refusal To Reinstate Natasha Undermines Democracy — IPAC Secretary Senate’s Refusal To Reinstate Natasha Undermines Democracy — IPAC Secretary
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has adjourned the hearing of a preliminary objection filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to December 1.

Gatekeepers Newreports that Justice Chizoba Oji fixed the new date on Monday after the prosecution admitted that it had not properly served its response to the senator’s objection in her ongoing trial for alleged defamation of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was arraigned on June 19, faces a three-count charge filed by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice. The charge, marked FCT/HC/CR/297/25, accuses her of making harmful imputations intended to damage the reputations of Akpabio and Bello, including an allegation that they plotted to kill her and were linked to the death of Miss Imoren Iniobong. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

At Monday’s proceedings, prosecuting counsel David Kaswe informed the court that although a response to the objection had been filed, it was served at an incorrect address and not received by the defence. He therefore sought a short adjournment to enable proper service.

“It will not be fair for the prosecution to insist that the matter goes on as the defence team has indicated that they will respond to our counter,” Kaswe said.

Defence counsel Ehighioge West-Idahosa (SAN) confirmed that his team had not been served and indicated plans to file additional evidence once properly notified. He also requested a long adjournment, citing the defence team’s planned attendance at the International Bar Association (IBA) conference in Canada.

Justice Oji granted the request and adjourned the hearing to December 1.

At the previous sitting on September 23, West-Idahosa had argued that the objection was based on alleged abuse of prosecutorial powers by the AGF’s office, describing it as a “threshold jurisdictional matter” rather than a challenge to the merits of the charge.