Premium News
FG FILES FRESH SUIT AGAINST NATASHA AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN
The Federal Government has filed a fresh charge against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan at the Federal High Court, Abuja, intensifying its legal battle against the lawmaker.
The new charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/195/25, was instituted on May 22, 2025, barely weeks after a similar charge, CR/297/25, was filed against her at the FCT High Court.
Both charges stem from allegations that Akpoti-Uduaghan made statements capable of harming the reputations of Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello.
While the charge at the FCT High Court is predicated on Section 392 of the Penal Code, focusing on alleged criminal defamation, the fresh charge at the Federal High Court is rooted in Sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition) Act, 2024 (as amended).
The government accuses the senator of making statements online that could damage the public image of Akpabio and Bello, an allegation she has consistently denied.
Both cases are based on the same set of facts and words, raising concerns among legal observers that the federal government may be engaging in forum shopping. Critics argue that by filing identical charges in multiple courts, the government appears to be casting its net wide in search of a court that might rule in its favour, a move seen as an abuse of the judicial process.
The Federal High Court has slated June 30, 2025, for the arraignment of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan on the new charge.
This comes after the FCT High Court granted her bail on June 19, 2025. Legal experts say the duplicity of charges not only clogs the court system but may also amount to harassment, particularly when the alleged offence is based on free speech.
Globally, defamation has largely been decriminalized, with jurisdictions like Lagos, Delta, Edo, and Ekiti States in Nigeria abolishing criminal defamation laws altogether. In these states, defamation is treated purely as a civil matter, as it is essentially aimed at protecting personal reputation rather than punishing dissent or curbing free speech.
Many analysts have described the Federal Government’s pursuit of criminal defamation charges as an attempt to stifle opposition voices and discourage criticism of public office holders.
They warn that such prosecutions, under the guise of protecting reputations, risk undermining constitutional rights to free expression and may set a dangerous precedent for silencing dissent.
