Court adjourns cybercrime case to October 20 after defence challenge
The planned trial of suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan on a six-count charge of cybercrime has been delayed, following a preliminary objection filed by her legal team.
The trial, scheduled to begin on Monday, September 22, 2025, at the Federal High Court in Abuja, was halted after the defence raised concerns about the court’s jurisdiction and the alleged misuse of prosecutorial powers.
Akpoti-Uduaghan was first arraigned on June 30, 2025, and pleaded not guilty to the charges, which were filed by the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), Mohammed Abubakar, under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
Following her arraignment, Justice Mohammed Umar granted her bail and scheduled September 22 for the commencement of trial.
Prosecution ready to proceed, but defence raises jurisdictional issues
At Monday’s hearing, prosecuting counsel David Kaswe informed the court that the prosecution was ready to call its first witness and had already mounted a television screen in the courtroom to aid in presenting digital evidence.
However, the trial was interrupted when the defence counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, informed the court that the defence had filed a notice of preliminary objection, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.
West-Idahosa clarified that the objection was not against the nature of the charges but rather alleged an abuse of the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
The senior advocate also complained that the defence had not been served with the statements of the prosecution witnesses, arguing that such documents were necessary for fair hearing and adequate preparation.
Judge insists on resolving objection before trial
While the prosecution lawyer urged the court to allow the trial to commence despite the objection, Justice Umar maintained that the objection must be addressed first. He emphasized that jurisdictional issues are fundamental and must be resolved before the court can proceed to hear the substantive case.
“The court will first determine the objection raised by the defence before taking any further steps in the case,” the judge ruled.
The matter was then adjourned to October 20, 2025, for the hearing of the preliminary objection.
Details of the cybercrime charges
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan is accused of violating Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024, by allegedly transmitting false and injurious statements via electronic means, with the intent to malign, incite, or endanger lives and breach public order.
The prosecution alleges that on April 1, 2025, during a public address in Ihima, Kogi State, Akpoti-Uduaghan claimed that Senate President Godswill Akpabio had directed former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello to have her killed—specifically stating that the act should occur in Kogi to make it appear as a local incident.
The charges also include references to a television interview, in which the senator allegedly repeated the same allegations.
Sample from Count One:
“…and Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying, standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja, it should be done here, so it will seem as if it is the people that killed me here…”
The prosecution contends that such statements are false, damaging to the reputations of both Akpabio and Bello, and could incite public unrest. Each count carries penalties under the amended cybercrime law.
Legal and political implications
The case has attracted national attention not only because of the high-profile personalities involved, but also due to its implications for freedom of speech, political expression, and the use of cybercrime laws in Nigeria’s democratic space.
While Akpoti-Uduaghan remains suspended from her role as Senator representing Kogi Central, her legal team has indicated that they will vigorously defend the case, starting with the challenge to the court’s jurisdiction.
Observers now await the October 20 hearing, where the court is expected to deliver a ruling on the validity of the objection, which could determine the future direction of the trial.
