|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The scheduled trial in the cybercrime case against Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, suspended Kogi Central Senator, was on Monday adjourned until October 20, 2025 by the Federal High Court in Abuja following a jurisdictional objection raised by her legal team.
Akpoti-Uduaghan is facing a six-count charge (Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025) filed under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, by the Federal Government. She was arraigned on June 30 and granted bail on self-recognition.
The charges relate to the alleged transmission of false and harmful information via electronic means, intended to incite, endanger lives, and disrupt public order.
According to the prosecution, led by Mohammed Abubakar, Director of Public Prosecution Akpoti-Uduaghan, while speaking at a public event in Ihima, Kogi State, on April 4, 2025, accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of directing former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello to arrange her assassination in the state.
The same claim was allegedly repeated during a television interview.
One of the charges states that on or about April 1, 2025, she made the following statementand Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying, standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done here, so it will seem as if it is the people that killed me here”.
Read also: No mandate for reinstatement, National Assembly tells Natasha Akpoti
The prosecution alleges that the statement was likely to damage the reputations of Senator Akpabio and former Governor Bello. The offences are said to violate Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024.
At the resumed hearing, David Kaswe, prosecuting counsel informed the court that the prosecution was ready to present its first witness, with a screen installed in the courtroom for the session.
However, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, defence counsel opposed the move, stating that a preliminary objection had been filed, challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
He clarified that the objection was based not on the content of the charges, but on alleged misuse of prosecutorial powers by the Attorney-General.
West-Idahosa also complained that the defence had not been served with witness statements.
Despite the prosecution’s request to proceed, Justice Mohammed Umar ruled that the preliminary objection must be resolved first.
He adjourned the matter to October 20, 2025, for hearing on the objection and possible commencement of trial.
