Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan defamation charges spark political storm as senator claims selective justice and challenges the FG’s legal authority in court

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan libel allegation Charges have triggered a fresh political storm, as the Kogi Central senator mounted a fierce legal resistance against what she labelled “political persecution” by the Federal Government.

Also read: Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Cybercrime Trial Faces Delay

On Monday, her legal team, led by four Senior Advocates of Nigeria, filed a preliminary objection before both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the FCT, seeking to dismiss the criminal defamation case filed against her by the Attorney General of the Federation.

The charges, brought under the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024, stem from comments she allegedly made about Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi governor Yahaya Bello.

The senator argued that the six-count charge—case number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025—is politically motivated, especially given that her own earlier petitions against Akpabio were ignored.

She described the charges as “frivolous, unconstitutional, and a deliberate attempt to intimidate dissent.”

Her legal team insists the Attorney General has no locus standi to pursue what is fundamentally a civil matter, asserting that criminalising public commentary violates Nigeria’s democratic norms and suppresses free speech.

At the heart of the case is her claim that Akpabio ordered Bello to “have her killed,” a statement allegedly made during a public event in Ihima on 4 April 2025 and later echoed in a televised interview.

Prosecutors argue that her remarks were false, inciteful, and harmful to public order.

Yet Akpoti-Uduaghan has fiercely denied any wrongdoing, saying her comments fell within the bounds of protected political speech.

Her lawyers presented exhibits to demonstrate that her statements were part of broader public discourse on the state of political safety in Nigeria.

“This is not justice,” said Dr E. West-Idahosa (SAN), one of her lead counsels. “This is a calculated abuse of the criminal justice system to muzzle opposition and punish whistle-blowers.”

Her defence also questioned why petitions she had previously submitted—alleging threats to her life from the same individuals—were never investigated, pointing to a double standard in enforcement.

“This selective prosecution violates Section 42 of the Constitution and constitutes gendered political harassment,” she argued in court.

The legal clash follows her controversial six-month suspension from the Senate in March 2025 after accusing Akpabio of harassment—a claim he strongly denies.

The Senate has since blocked her return, despite a Federal High Court ruling on 4 July declaring her suspension unconstitutional.

The case has now escalated beyond Nigeria’s borders. A coalition of over 350 women’s rights groups, led by Womanifesto Network, filed a petition to the United Nations, alleging the Nigerian Senate is breaching the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, ratified by Nigeria in 1985.

“This case is no longer just about Natasha,” said Dr Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi, Womanifesto’s convener. “It’s about every woman in politics who risks harassment and career destruction for speaking out.”

International groups including Amnesty International Nigeria, FIDA, WIMBIZ, and Stand to End Rape have signed the petition urging the UN to intervene and press the Nigerian government to comply with court orders and uphold women’s rights in governance.

Meanwhile, the Federal High Court has adjourned the matter to 20 October, following an objection raised by her legal counsel.

The case continues to spotlight growing concerns over the use of state institutions for political retaliation, especially against female politicians.

Also read: Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Cybercrime Trial Faces Delay

As the nation watches, the Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Defamation Charges case has become a litmus test for Nigeria’s commitment to free speech, gender justice, and democratic accountability.