NATASHA'S CASE TAKES A TURN, COURT DELAYS DEFAMATION RULING TO DECEMBER 1

Read Time:2 Minute, 26 Second

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Maitama, Abuja, has postponed proceedings until December 1 for the examination of a preliminary objection submitted by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in relation to her trial concerning alleged defamation of Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.

The presiding judge, Justice Chizoba Oji, rescheduled the date after prosecuting attorney David Kaswe informed the court that, although the session was designated for discussion of the objection, the prosecution had not managed to deliver its response to the defence.

However, Kaswe acknowledged that the response had been filed with the court.

Akpoti-Uduaghan was arraigned on June 19 on a three-count indictment associated with damaging allegations, submitted by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.

Under charge number FCT/HC/CR/297/25, Akpoti-Uduaghan faced accusations of making damaging allegations which she purportedly knew would tarnish the reputation of Senate President Akpabio by asserting that he conspired with former governor Bello to end her life.

She was also accused of making comparable allegations against Bello and an additional claim against Akpabio, allegedly associating him with the demise of Miss Iniobong Umoren.

Akpoti-Uduaghan, however, entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.

During the previous session on September 23, defence counsel Ehighioge West-Idahosa informed the court that the defendant had submitted a notice of preliminary objection, contending that the Office of the Attorney-General had misused its prosecutorial authority.

He clarified that the objection did not dispute the essence of the charges but rather challenged their legitimacy, characterizing it as a “threshold jurisdictional issue. ”

He further stated that the preliminary objection had been served on the AGF’s office on September 18, yet no response had been forthcoming.

At Monday’s resumed proceedings, Kaswe articulated to the court that the address used for the prosecution’s counter-affidavit service did not correspond to any of the defence attorneys, requesting a brief postponement to facilitate proper service.

“It would be unjust for the prosecution to compel the continuation of the matter when the defence team has signaled its desire to respond to our counter.

“We are, therefore, seeking a brief adjournment to allow us to effect proper service,” Kaswe stated.

In reply, West-Idahosa affirmed that the defence had not received the prosecution’s response, emphasizing that none of the defendant’s legal representatives had been served.

“The prosecution’s counter was not delivered to any of the defendant’s attorneys. We intend to respond once we are properly served, as we have further evidence to present,” the senior advocate remarked.

He also urged the court to grant a longer adjournment, explaining that members of the defence team were planning to attend the International Bar Association Conference in Canada this year.

After considering the positions of both parties, Justice Oji adjourned the preliminary objection hearing to December 1.