|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Abuja High Court has adjourned to December 1 the hearing of a preliminary objection filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who is challenging the authority of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to prosecute her.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, faces charges of defaming Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello. She was arraigned on June 19 on a three-count charge filed by the AGF’s office.
In the case, marked FCT/HC/CR/297/25, Akpoti-Uduaghan is accused of making statements that could harm Akpabio’s reputation, including claims that he conspired with ex-Governor Bello to plot her murder.
She is also accused of making statements harming Bello’s reputation and linking Akpabio to the death of one Miss Imoren Iniobong. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
During proceedings, prosecution counsel David Kaswe informed the court that the day’s hearing was to address the defendant’s preliminary objection.
He noted, however, that the prosecution’s response had not been properly served on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyers. Kaswe said the response was sent to an incorrect address and requested a short adjournment to allow proper service.
“It would be unfair to proceed when the defence has not received our response,” Kaswe said.
Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lead counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa SAN, confirmed the defence had not received the prosecution’s counter.
Read also: Natasha returns: What next for Kogi’s most talked-about senator?
He requested a longer adjournment, explaining that some defence members would attend this year’s International Bar Association meeting in Canada.
After hearing submissions, Justice Chizoba Oji adjourned the matter until December 1.
At a previous hearing on September 23, West-Idahosa told the court that the preliminary objection was based on alleged abuse of prosecutorial power by the AGF’s office.
He clarified that the objection did not challenge the substance of the charges but questioned the validity of the prosecution, describing it as a “threshold jurisdictional matter.”
The defence served the AGF with the objection on September 18, but the prosecution had not yet responded.
