In a significant development within Nigeria's political and judicial landscape, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has adjourned the hearing of a preliminary objection filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in her ongoing defamation trial. The case, which pits the Kogi Central senator against Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, was scheduled for proceedings on Monday, October 27, 2025, but has now been pushed forward to December 1, 2025. This adjournment underscores the procedural complexities and logistical challenges that often characterize high-stakes legal battles involving prominent public figures.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Chizoba Oji made the ruling after listening to submissions from both the prosecution and defense teams. The delay stemmed primarily from an issue with the service of legal documents, highlighting the importance of due process in ensuring a fair trial. Prosecution counsel David Kaswe informed the court that, despite the hearing being fixed for that day, his team had not yet properly served their response to the defense's preliminary objection. Although the prosecution's counter-affidavit had already been filed with the court registry, it had been dispatched to an erroneous address—one that did not correspond to any member of the defense counsel.
This mishap prompted Kaswe to advocate for a brief postponement. He emphasized the principles of fairness, arguing that proceeding without allowing the defense adequate time to review and respond to the counter-affidavit would be inequitable. In his words, as quoted in court: "It would not be fair for the prosecution to insist that the matter proceed when the defence team has indicated its intention to respond to our counter. We are, therefore, asking for a short adjournment to enable us to effect proper service." This request reflects a commitment to procedural integrity, ensuring that all parties are fully apprised of the opposing arguments before substantive hearings commence.
On the defense side, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was represented by her lead counsel, Ehighioge West-Idahosa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). West-Idahosa corroborated the prosecution's admission, confirming that none of the lawyers on the defendant's team had received the counter-affidavit. He stated unequivocally: "The prosecution’s counter was not served on any of the defendant’s lawyers. We intend to respond when we are properly served, as we have additional evidence to file." This assertion not only validated the need for adjournment but also signaled the defense's preparedness to bolster their case with further submissions once the documents are correctly delivered.
Adding another layer to the request for delay, West-Idahosa petitioned the court for a more extended adjournment. He cited scheduling conflicts for key members of the defense team, who are slated to attend the prestigious International Bar Association Conference in Canada. This international engagement, a significant event for legal professionals worldwide, would inevitably pull resources away from the case in the immediate term. The defense's push for a longer break was thus framed not merely as a convenience but as a necessity to maintain effective representation and avoid any compromise in the quality of legal advocacy.
Justice Oji, after carefully considering the arguments from both sides, exercised judicial discretion in favor of the adjournment. The new date of December 1, 2025, was set specifically for the hearing of the preliminary objection. This decision allows ample time—over a month—for the prosecution to rectify the service error, for the defense to file their reply, and for all parties to prepare adequately. It also accommodates the defense team's international commitments, preventing any potential prejudice to the senator's right to robust legal defense.
To fully appreciate the context of this adjournment, it is essential to revisit the origins and substance of the case. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, a vocal lawmaker representing Kogi Central Senatorial District in the National Assembly, was formally arraigned on June 19, 2025, before the same FCT High Court. The charges against her consist of three counts of harmful imputation, initiated by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF). The suit bears the reference number FCT/HC/CR/297/25 and accuses the senator of making defamatory statements that allegedly tarnished the reputations of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.
Specifically, the prosecution alleges that Akpoti-Uduaghan claimed Akpabio conspired with Bello in a plot to assassinate her. Furthermore, she is said to have linked Akpabio to the tragic death of Miss Iniobong Umoren, a case that garnered widespread public attention and outrage in previous years due to its gruesome nature and implications of foul play. These imputations, according to the AGF's office, constitute harmful falsehoods intended to expose the complainants to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, thereby violating relevant provisions of Nigeria's criminal code on defamation.
Upon arraignment, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan entered a plea of not guilty to all counts, setting the stage for a contentious trial. The case has drawn considerable media and public interest, given the high profiles of the individuals involved. Akpabio, as the President of the Senate and third in line to the Nigerian presidency, wields significant influence in the country's legislative arm. Bello, though no longer in office, remains a polarizing figure in Kogi politics, with a legacy marked by both developmental strides and allegations of misconduct during his tenure.
The preliminary objection at the heart of Monday's proceedings was first raised during a prior court session on September 23, 2025. At that hearing, West-Idahosa (SAN) notified the court of the defense's filing of a notice of preliminary objection. Crucially, he clarified that this objection does not contest the factual content of the charges but rather challenges their legal validity on jurisdictional grounds. Describing it as a "threshold jurisdictional matter," the senior advocate argued that the AGF's office had abused its prosecutorial powers by initiating the suit. He noted that the objection had been served on the AGF's office as early as September 18, 2025, yet no response had been forthcoming at that time.
This jurisdictional challenge is a common strategic move in criminal proceedings, aimed at potentially dismissing the case at an early stage without delving into the merits. If successful, it could invalidate the entire prosecution on grounds such as improper invocation of authority, lack of locus standi, or procedural irregularities by the AGF. The defense's insistence on addressing this before trial proper underscores their confidence in exposing flaws in the charging process.
The adjournment to December 1, 2025, provides a window for resolution of these preliminary issues. In the interim, the prosecution must ensure flawless service of their counter-affidavit, adhering strictly to court rules on notification. The defense, meanwhile, will likely refine their reply, incorporating the "additional evidence" mentioned by West-Idahosa. This evidence could include affidavits, documents, or witness statements that further substantiate the claim of prosecutorial overreach.
Broader implications of the case extend beyond the courtroom. It highlights tensions within Nigeria's political elite, where public statements can quickly escalate into legal battles. Defamation laws in Nigeria, rooted in the Criminal Code Act and the Cybercrimes Act for online publications, are often invoked in politically charged disputes. Critics argue that such laws can be weaponized to stifle dissent, while proponents maintain they protect reputations essential for public trust in leadership.
For Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, known for her advocacy on women's rights, mining reforms, and anti-corruption, this trial represents a personal and professional ordeal. Her allegations against Akpabio and Bello, if unsubstantiated, could damage her credibility; conversely, proving jurisdictional abuse might vindicate her stance on accountability.
As the case progresses toward the December hearing, stakeholders will watch closely. The outcome of the preliminary objection could either propel the trial forward or halt it entirely. Justice Oji's court has demonstrated a balanced approach, prioritizing fairness and efficiency. With the new date set, all eyes will be on Maitama come December 1, 2025, when the jurisdictional fate of this defamation saga will be argued in earnest.
In summary, the October 27 adjournment arises from a service error but accommodates broader needs for preparation and international obligations. It delays but does not derail a trial emblematic of Nigeria's intersecting worlds of politics, law, and public discourse. The coming weeks will be crucial for document exchanges and strategic maneuvering, ensuring that when the court reconvenes, the preliminary objection receives the thorough examination it demands. This case continues to captivate, reflecting the high stakes of words in the public arena.
