A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama has granted the Federal Government’s request to adjourn the alleged criminal defamation case against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
During Monday’s proceedings, the senator’s counsel, Ehiogie West Idahosa (SAN), informed the court that the prosecution was absent.
Justice Chizoba Oji then revealed that she had received a letter from the prosecution seeking an adjournment.
The letter was subsequently shown to Idahosa, who stated that he had not been served.
Idahosa argued that although the letter was filed earlier that morning, the prosecution failed to comply with the rule requiring such notices to be communicated to the defence at least 48 hours before the scheduled sitting.
He asked the court to proceed with the day’s business, which was the hearing of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan’s preliminary objection, since the defendant was present.
Justice Oji agreed that the adjournment request did not meet the procedural requirement but, “in the interest of justice,” granted the prosecution’s request.
She declined the defence’s plea to continue with the hearing and adjourned the case until February 23 next year.
The senator attended the proceedings alongside her husband.
Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan is facing a criminal defamation charge stemming from her allegation that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello conspired to kill her.
Her preliminary objection challenges the AGF’s decision to file two similar charges, one at the FCT High Court and another at the Federal High Court, Abuja, arguing that the duplication amounts to an abuse of court process.
In a counter-affidavit, however, the prosecution maintained that the cases were not duplicative.
It asserted that the three-count charge before the FCT High Court was filed only after a thorough investigation established a prima facie case.
The prosecution further argued that the charge, brought under the Penal Code, was lawful, properly investigated, and filed in line with the AGF’s constitutional authority.
It added that the decision to file the charge was guided by public interest, the interest of justice, and the need to prevent abuse of legal processes.
(Agency Report)
