The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Monday, adjourned till December 1 for the hearing of a preliminary objection filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in her trial for alleged defamation of Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
The trial judge, Justice Chizoba Oji, fixed the date after the prosecuting counsel, David Kaswe, informed the court that although the matter was scheduled for a hearing of the objection, the prosecution had been unable to serve its response on the defence.
Kaswe, however, noted that the response had been filed with the court.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was arraigned on June 19, before the court on a three-count charge bordering on harmful imputation, filed by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
In the charge marked FCT/HC/CR/297/25, Akpoti-Uduaghan was accused of making harmful imputations that she allegedly knew would damage the reputation of Senate President Akpabio by claiming that he conspired with former governor Bello to kill her.
She was further accused of making similar imputations against Bello and another against Akpabio, allegedly linking him to the death of Miss Iniobong Umoren.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, however, pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
In the charge marked FCT/HC/CR/297/25, Akpoti-Uduaghan was accused of making harmful imputations that she allegedly knew would damage the reputation of Senate President Akpabio by claiming that he conspired with former governor Bello to kill her.
She was further accused of making similar imputations against Bello and another against Akpabio, allegedly linking him to the death of Miss Iniobong Umoren.
Akpoti-Uduaghan, however, pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
At the last sitting on September 23, defence counsel, Ehighioge West-Idahosa, informed the court that the defendant had filed a notice of preliminary objection, arguing that the Office of the Attorney-General had abused its prosecutorial powers.
According to him, the objection did not contest the substance of the charges but challenged their validity, describing it as a “threshold jurisdictional matter.”
