- Safiu Kehinde
An Abuja High Court sitting on Tuesday has adjourned the hearing of the preliminary objection raised by Kogi lawmaker, Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, over the defamation suit filed against her by the Federal Government.
Recall that Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, was in the suit filed by the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) alleged to have defamed Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former governor of Kogi, Yahaya Bello.
This came under the heels of the ongoing legal dispute bordering on alleged sexual harassment between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan.
The dispute which had emanated from the March 6 suspension of the Kogi lawmaker had since expanded into series of litigation cases.
Meanwhile, the AGF’s suit came to the spotlight days after Akpoti-Uduaghan publicly accused Akpabio and Yahaya Bello of making assassination plot against her.
She was arraigned on a three-count criminal charge bordering on harmful imputations during a television interview.
While she pleaded not guilty, the court admitted her to bail in the sum of N50 million and one surety in the like sum in the charge marked CR/297/25 filed on May 15, 2025.
The case which had since lingered on Tuesday revisited at the court before the presiding Judge, Justice Chizoba Oji.
At the sitting on Tuesday, Ehighioge West-Idahosa (SAN) counsel for Akpoti-Uduaghan, predicated the objections on the alleged abuse of prosecutorial powers by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
He said filing charge against her at the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on the same subject matter and same complaints, was an abuse of court procedure.
Prior to West-Idahosa’s argument, David Kaswe, the prosecution counsel, informed the court of his readiness to open the case against the defendant.
He claimed to have his first witness, a SP Abdulhafeez Garba in court to testify against the defendant.
He prayed for permission of the court to call the witness into the witness box.
This was however, objected to by West-Idahosa on the grounds that his client has filed a motion on notice, challenging the competence of the charges and the jurisdiction of the court.
He added that the motion has been served on the Attorney General of the Federation AGF as required by law but that the AGF had not responded.
Kaswe argued that he ought to have been served personally or be informed on phone on the filing of the motion and requested that Akpoti-Uduaghan‘s claim be rejected.
However, Justice Oji found in the case file that the AGF office was served with the motion but had not responded as required by law.
At this point, Kaswe admitted that the AGF had been out of the country and as such, has not made the motion available to him.
After listening to both parties’ arguments Oji held that the proper thing was to shift trial to enable AGF respond to the motion in the interest of fair hearing.
The Judge subsequently adjourned until October 27 for Natasha’s motion to be heard alongside the response of the AGF.