|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Summary
The cybercrime trial of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was stalled on September 22, 2025, after her defence raised a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction. The judge adjourned the matter to October 20 for the hearing of the objection.
The planned commencement of trial in the cybercrime case against suspended Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, was stalled on September 22, 2025, at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The delay followed an objection raised by the defence.
Senator Natasha was arraigned on June 30 on a six-count charge filed by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), Mohammed Abubakar, and was granted bail. Justice Mohammed Umar had fixed September 22 for the commencement of the trial.
She is accused under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act 2024 of transmitting false and injurious information via electronic means with the intent to malign, incite, endanger lives, and breach public order.
The charge claims that during a gathering in Ihima, Kogi State, on April 4, 2025, she claimed Senate President Godswill Akpabio directed former Kogi governor Yahaya Bello to have her killed. She was also alleged to have repeated the claim in a television interview.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel, David Kaswe, informed the court that the day’s business was to open the case by calling the first witness. A television screen had already been mounted in the courtroom in preparation for proceedings.
However, defence counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa (SAN), objected to the commencement of the trial, noting that his client had filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction. He explained that the objection was not against the charge itself, but against what he described as an abuse of the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
He further said that the prosecution had failed to serve the defence with copies of the witnesses’ statements. Despite David’s argument that the objection should not delay proceedings, Justice Umar ruled that the prosecution must first respond to the objection before trial could proceed.
The judge adjourned the matter until October 20 for the hearing of the objection.
