Senator Natasha H. Akpoti-Uduaghan has moved to quash criminal defamation charges filed against her, accusing the Federal Government of weaponising state power to settle political scores for Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello.
In Preliminary Objections filed simultaneously at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal High Court, Akpoti-Uduaghan’s lawyers branded the prosecutions unconstitutional, politically motivated, and a misuse of public resources.
The charges—one under the Penal Code and another under the Cybercrimes Act—stem from petitions by Akpabio and Bello, who claim her statements defamed them personally.
But the Senator’s legal team, led by four Senior Advocates of Nigeria—Prof. Roland Otaru, SAN; Dr. E. West-Idahosa, SAN; J.J. Usman, SAN; and M.J. Numa, SAN—argues the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) exceeded his constitutional powers under Section 174(3), which requires him to act “in the public interest, in the interest of justice, and to prevent abuse of legal process.”
“This prosecution serves no public good—it merely shields the reputations of two influential politicians using taxpayers’ money,” the Senator’s filing states.
Her team insists defamation is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, and warns that criminalising it is an intimidation tactic to silence opposition voices.
Exhibits submitted include past media commentary criticising Akpabio and Bello—evidence, they argue, that her remarks fell within legitimate public discourse.
Akpoti-Uduaghan also alleges selective justice: while her own petitions claiming threats to her life by the complainants were ignored, the AGF quickly pursued charges against her.
She insisted the move violateed Section 42 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on political affiliation or opinion.
The defence describes the charges as “frivolous, unconstitutional, and a waste of public funds”, urging the courts to dismiss them at the preliminary stage.
Legal observers say the rulings—registered as Charge No. CR/297/2025 and its cybercrime counterpart—could set a precedent on the limits of prosecutorial power and the balance between free speech and defamation in Nigeria’s charged political climate.