Court Adjourns Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Cybercrime Trial to Oct. 20

By Correspondent in Abuja.

The commencement of trial in the cybercrime charges filed against suspended Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, was on Monday stalled at the Federal High Court, Abuja, following an objection raised by her legal team.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, arraigned on June 30 on a six-count charge filed by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), Mohammed Abubakar, was granted bail after her plea. Justice Mohammed Umar had fixed September 22 for the prosecution to open its case.

At Monday’s proceedings, prosecuting counsel David Kaswe announced readiness to call the first witness, stating that all arrangements, including the mounting of a television screen in court, had been made.

However, defence counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa (SAN), informed the court that his client had filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction. He argued that the objection was not against the nature of the charges but alleged abuse of prosecutorial powers by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

The defence further complained about the prosecution’s failure to serve them with copies of witness statements.

Although Kaswe urged the court to proceed with trial despite the objection, Justice Umar ruled that the prosecution must first respond to the defence’s challenge. He adjourned the matter to October 20 for hearing of the objection.

The charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, was brought under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024. The suspended senator is accused of transmitting false and injurious information with intent to malign, incite violence, endanger lives, and breach public order.

Part of the charge alleges that during a public gathering in Ihima, Kogi State, on April 4, 2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan claimed that Senate President Godswill Akpabio instructed former Governor Yahaya Bello to have her killed. She was also said to have repeated similar allegations during a television interview.

The prosecution insists the statements were capable of damaging the reputations of Akpabio and Bello, contrary to Section 24 (2)(c) of the Cybercrimes Act.

Edited by Dada Ahmed.