The legal team representing suspended Kogi Central Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has confirmed receipt of a court summons in the defamation case brought against her by the Federal Government.
The suit, filed on May 16, 2025, at the Federal Capital Territory High Court (Case No. CR/297/25), arises from remarks Akpoti-Uduaghan made during a live interview on Politics Today, aired by Channels Television on April 3, 2025. Authorities claim the senator’s statements were defamatory and damaging to another individual’s reputation, citing Section 391 of the Penal Code.
Key prosecution witnesses include Senate President Godswill Akpabio, former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, Senator Asuquo Ekpenyong, activist Sandra Duru, and police investigators Maya Iliya and Abdulhafiz Garba.
In a statement issued Friday evening, lead counsel Dr. Ehiogie West-Idahosa (SAN) confirmed the legal team had received the court filing from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He pledged a strong defence grounded in legal principles and evidence.
“At about 2:30 p.m. on May 23, we were served with the court information outlining three counts against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, alleging she made damaging imputations against Senator Akpabio,” the statement read. “We intend to vigorously defend her using all lawful means.”
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended from the Senate on March 6, 2025, over alleged “gross misconduct” following a confrontation with Akpabio.
She has denounced the suspension as both illegal and politically driven, claiming it was retaliation for her public accusations of sexual harassment against the Senate President allegations the Senate has denied.
Following her remarks, Akpabio petitioned the Inspector-General of Police, requesting an investigation into charges of criminal defamation, incitement, and false accusations.
Former Governor Yahaya Bello also filed a petition rejecting Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claim that he plotted her assassination under Akpabio’s directive.
The case, now heading to trial, is expected to attract national attention as it tests the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, freedom of speech, and accountability in high office.
Advertisement
