On June 16, 2025, the Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja, presided over by Justice Muhammed Umar, rejected the Federal Authorities’s request to subject a bench warrant for the arrest of suspended Kogi Central Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. The request, made by the Lawyer Common of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), stemmed from her absence at a scheduled arraignment for costs associated to alleged prison defamation and cybercrimes.
The Federal Authorities, performing on behalf of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, filed costs in opposition to Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan following her April 3, 2025, look on Channels Tv. In the course of the dwell broadcast, she allegedly claimed that Akpabio and Bello had been plotting to assassinate her, accusations deemed defamatory. An analogous defamation case is pending on the Excessive Courtroom of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The cybercrime costs cite violations of sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, and so forth.) Modification Act 2024.
Courtroom’s Determination
The prosecution, led by Mr. Kaswe, argued for a bench warrant, claiming that serving Akpoti-Uduaghan’s authorized counsel was ample discover of the arraignment. Nevertheless, her counsel, Jacob Usman (SAN), countered that the senator had not been correctly served with the cost or listening to discover, receiving them solely minutes earlier than the court docket session. Justice Umar dominated that issuing a bench warrant was inappropriate since Akpoti-Uduaghan had not been personally served, as required. As a substitute, he granted the prosecution’s secondary request for substituted service by her counsel and adjourned the case to June 30, 2025, for arraignment.
Further Context
- Senator’s Protection: Akpoti-Uduaghan has expressed confidence that “the reality will prevail” and beforehand raised considerations about her cellphone line being cloned to malign Nigerian dignitaries, submitting a petition with the Nationwide Cybercrime Centre. Her authorized workforce, together with Uju Nwoduwu, has accused the federal government of selective justice, noting that her earlier petitions (12 filed between March and Could 2025) about threats, cyberstalking, and defamation had been ignored.
- Controversy Over Witnesses: The case includes a witness, Duru, whose credibility is questioned as a result of alleged unresolved prison points. Critics, together with civic teams, have raised considerations about her use as a prosecution witness, with some alleging efforts to protect her from arrest. Moreover, media activist Obinna Oparaku Akuwudike was arrested in connection to the case, prompting accusations of silencing dissent.
- Public and Authorized Considerations: ActionAid Nigeria and different civic teams have condemned the costs as a misuse of state energy, arguing they threaten freedom of expression assured underneath Part 39 of the Nigerian Structure and Article 9 of the African Constitution on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Critics cite the 1985 case Arthur Nwankwo v. The State to argue that prison libel costs in opposition to public critics are legally questionable, urging Akpabio and Bello to pursue civil libel fits as an alternative.
Sentiment and Broader Implications
Posts on X mirror public division, with some viewing the costs as politically motivated to silence Akpoti-Uduaghan, considered one of solely 4 feminine senators in Nigeria’s 109-member Senate, elevating gender equality considerations. Others see the case as a take a look at of Nigeria’s judicial integrity and democratic area. The controversy has drawn worldwide consideration, with requires clear investigations into all associated allegations.
Authoritative Sources
- Management Nigeria: leadership.ng
- Every day Submit Nigeria: dailypost.ng
- The Whistler: thewhistler.ng
- Every day Nigerian: dailynigerian.com
- BBC Information: bbc.com
