Court Grants FG Request to Postpone Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Defamation Trial Till Next Year

The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama has approved the prosecution’s request to adjourn the trial of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in the alleged criminal defamation case filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) until next year.

At Monday’s hearing, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyer, Ehiogie West Idahosa, SAN, appeared in court and noted that the prosecution was absent. Justice Chizoba Oji explained that the court had received a letter from the prosecution seeking an adjournment, which was later handed to Idahosa, who said he had not been formally served with it. Idahosa argued that the adjournment request did not comply with the requirement to notify the defence 48 hours before the court sitting and urged the court to proceed with the scheduled business, which included the defendant’s preliminary objection.

Justice Oji acknowledged that the adjournment request did not meet the procedural threshold but granted it in the interest of justice, rejecting the defence’s plea to continue with the day’s proceedings. The trial was subsequently adjourned to February 23 next year. Akpoti-Uduaghan attended court with her husband.

Akpoti-Uduaghan faces criminal defamation charges over claims that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello plotted to kill her. Her preliminary objection challenges the filing of two similar charges simultaneously, which she argues is improper.

The prosecution, however, countered that the charges were filed following a thorough investigation and a prima facie case had been established. The three-count charge in the FCT High Court, the prosecution said, was brought under the Penal Code and in accordance with the prosecutorial powers of the AGF as guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution. They argued that the charges were consistent with the law, pursued in the interest of justice, and aimed at preventing abuse of legal processes, rejecting claims that the dual charges constituted an abuse of court process.