The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has adjourned till December 1, 2025, the hearing of a preliminary objection filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in her ongoing trial for alleged defamation of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.
Justice Chizoba Oji postponed the case after the prosecution admitted that it had been unable to properly serve its response to the defence, despite having filed the document with the court.
The prosecuting counsel, David Kaswe, told the court that the counter-affidavit was mistakenly sent to an address that did not belong to any member of the defence team.
“It would not be fair for the prosecution to insist that the matter proceed when the defence team has indicated its intention to respond to our counter. We are, therefore, asking for a short adjournment to enable us to effect proper service,” Kaswe explained.
Defence counsel, Ehighioge West-Idahosa (SAN), confirmed that the defence team had yet to receive the prosecution’s response, saying, “The prosecution’s counter was not served on any of the defendant’s lawyers. We intend to respond when we are properly served, as we have additional evidence to file.”
He further requested that the court grant a long adjournment, noting that members of the defence team would be attending this year’s International Bar Association Conference in Canada.
Justice Oji subsequently adjourned the case to December 1 for the hearing of the preliminary objection.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was arraigned on June 19, 2025, on a three-count charge filed by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The charges accuse her of making statements that allegedly defamed Akpabio and Bello by claiming they conspired to harm her and linking Akpabio to the death of Miss Iniobong Umoren.
She pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
At the previous sitting on September 23, the defence filed a notice of preliminary objection, arguing that the Attorney-General’s office had “abused its prosecutorial powers.” West-Idahosa described the objection as a “threshold jurisdictional matter,” stressing that it questioned the validity—not the content—of the charges.
The court’s decision to adjourn allows both parties additional time to exchange necessary documents before the hearing resumes.
