Justice Chizoba Orji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, has granted the Federal Government’s request to adjourn the criminal defamation case against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan to February 23, 2026.
At Monday’s proceedings, counsel to Akpoti-Uduaghan, Ehiogie West Idahosa (SAN), announced his appearance and drew the court’s attention to the absence of the prosecution team. Justice Orji disclosed that the court had received a letter from the prosecution seeking an adjournment, and handed the correspondence to Idahosa, who maintained that he had not been served.
Idahosa argued that the prosecution’s request violated the rule requiring that such applications be brought to the defence’s notice at least 48 hours before the hearing. He urged the court to proceed, noting that the defendant was present and that the adjournment application was “incompetent.” Monday’s sitting was slated for the hearing of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s preliminary objection.
In her ruling, Justice Orji agreed that the prosecution fell short of the statutory timeline but said the request would be granted in the interest of justice. She declined the defence’s plea to continue with the hearing and shifted the matter to February 23, 2026.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan is standing trial on a criminal defamation charge over her allegation that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello conspired to kill her.
Her preliminary objection challenges the Attorney-General of the Federation’s decision to file two similar charges against her concurrently.
However, in a counter-affidavit, the prosecution refuted her claims, arguing that the cases before the FCT High Court and the Federal High Court, Abuja, do not constitute an abuse of court process. It further stated that the three-count charge before the FCT High Court was filed after a thorough investigation confirmed a prima facie case.
The Federal Government maintained that the charge was brought under the Penal Code, in line with the AGF’s constitutional powers, and in the interest of justice and public order. It insisted that the case was properly instituted and did not amount to an abuse of prosecutorial authority.
