The Federal High Court in Abuja has shifted the cybercrime trial of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central Senatorial District, to November 24.
The new date was fixed on October 21, following the resumption of court proceedings that were earlier suspended due to the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest led by activist Omoyele Sowore.
The demonstration had disrupted activities on October 20, the initial date scheduled for the senator’s trial.
On that Monday, Justice Umar’s courtroom on the third floor of the Federal High Court complex remained locked, as judicial activities were completely grounded.
In the case marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025, Akpoti-Uduaghan is accused of transmitting false and damaging information electronically with the intent to “malign, incite, endanger lives, and breach public order.”
The charges allege that during a gathering on April 4 in Ihima, Kogi State, the senator claimed that Senate President Godswill Akpabio directed former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello to “have her killed” in the state.
She was also said to have repeated the allegation during a television interview, accusing both men of plotting to eliminate her.
The charges were filed under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
Justice Umar had previously adjourned the case on September 22 after the defence raised an objection.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was arraigned on June 30 on a six-count charge brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar. She was granted bail, and the case was fixed for September 22 for the commencement of trial.
However, on that date, as prosecuting counsel David Kaswe was about to call his first witness, defence counsel Ehiogie West-Idahosa raised a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
West-Idahosa clarified that the objection was not against the charge itself but based on what he described as “abuse of prosecutorial powers by the Attorney General of the Federation.” He also stated that the defence team had not received the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
Although Kaswe argued that the objection should not delay the proceedings, Justice Umar ruled that the prosecution must first respond to the defence’s objection before the case could move forward.
The judge stated that the court would determine the objection before taking any further steps in the matter.
Advertisement
