JUSTICE Chizoba Orji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court Maitama has granted the request by the Federal Government, to shift the hearing in the alleged criminal defamation case against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation, to February 23, 2026.
News Point Nigeria reports that at Monday’s proceedings, Counsel to Akpoti-Uduaghan, Ehiogie West Idahosa (SAN), announced his appearance and informed the court that the prosecution was not represented.
Justice Oji stated that the court had received a letter from the prosecution seeking an adjournment, and the letter was handed over to Idahosa, who said he was not served.
Idahosa noted that the letter was registered and filed earlier on Monday. He argued that the prosecution’s request did not comply with the requirement that such notices be brought to the defence’s attention at least 48 hours before the sitting.
He urged the court to proceed with the day’s business since the defendant was present and the adjournment application was, in his view, incompetent. The scheduled proceeding for the day, was the hearing of Akpoti-Uduaghan’s preliminary objection.
In her ruling, Justice Orji agreed that the application for adjournment fell short of the required threshold but granted it in the interest of justice. She rejected the defence’s prayer to continue with the hearing and adjourned the matter to February 23 next year.
Akpoti-Uduaghan is facing a criminal defamation charge over her allegation that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello plotted to kill her.
In her preliminary objection, she is challenging the AGF’s decision to file two similar charges against her simultaneously.
However, in a counter-affidavit opposing the objection, the prosecution faulted her claim that the cases filed at both the FCT High Court and the Federal High Court, Abuja, amounted to an abuse of court process.
The prosecution argued that the three-count charge before the FCT High Court was filed after a thorough investigation and the establishment of a case against her.
It stated that the charge was brought under the Penal Code and in the legitimate exercise of the AGF’s constitutional prosecutorial powers.
According to the prosecution, the defendant’s actions contravened the Penal Code, and all petitions she filed were duly investigated before the charges were initiated.
It added that the charge was filed with due regard to public interest, the interest of justice, and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process, insisting it was consistent with the law and did not constitute an abuse of prosecutorial powers.
