Justice Chizoba Orji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, has granted the Federal Government’s request to adjourn the criminal defamation case instituted against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF). The matter has now been rescheduled to February 23, 2026.
At Monday’s sitting, counsel to Akpoti-Uduaghan, Ehiogie West Idahosa (SAN), announced his appearance and drew the court’s attention to the absence of the prosecution.
Justice Orji informed the court that a letter seeking adjournment had been sent by the prosecution. The letter was handed over to Idahosa, who maintained that the defence had not been served. He noted that although the letter was filed earlier on Monday, it did not satisfy the legal requirement that such notices be communicated to the defence at least 48 hours before the hearing.
Idahosa urged the court to proceed with the scheduled business of the day, the hearing of the defendant’s preliminary objection arguing that the prosecution’s application was incompetent.
In her ruling, Justice Orji agreed that the adjournment request did not meet the required threshold but granted it “in the interest of justice.” She declined the defence’s request to proceed with the hearing and adjourned the matter to February 23, 2026.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan is facing a criminal defamation charge following her allegation that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello plotted to kill her.
In her preliminary objection, she is challenging the AGF’s decision to file two similar cases against her simultaneously.
However, in a counter-affidavit, the prosecution dismissed the claim that filing charges at both the FCT High Court and the Federal High Court, Abuja, amounted to an abuse of court process. It argued that the three-count charge before the FCT High Court was filed after a thorough investigation and was properly brought under the Penal Code.
The prosecution maintained that all petitions submitted by the defendant were duly investigated and that the decision to prosecute was made in the public interest, in the interest of justice, and in line with the AGF’s constitutional powers. It insisted that the charge did not constitute an abuse of prosecutorial authority.
