The Federal Excessive Courtroom in Abuja has mounted November 24, 2025, for the listening to of a preliminary objection raised by Senator Natasha Akpoti’s authorized staff following a cybercrime cost instituted towards her by the Federal Authorities.
Nairametrics gathered that the listening to date was rescheduled by Justice Umar Mohammed’s court docket on Tuesday after proceedings had been stalled on Monday.
The Federal Excessive Courtroom couldn’t sit on Monday because of the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest, which grounded actions within the nation’s capital metropolis centre.
Within the six-count cost beforehand reported by Nairametrics, Akpoti was accused of violating the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, and many others.) (Modification) Act, 2024, when she allegedly made feedback concentrating on the popularity of the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
Depend 1 of the cost reads:
“That on or in regards to the 1st day of April 2025, whereas addressing a crowd at Ihima Group, Kogi State, inside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Courtroom, you, SENATOR NATASHA H. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, deliberately precipitated the next communication to be transmitted by way of a pc system and community, to wit:
‘…and Akpabio advised Yahaya Bello, I’m saying and standing by what I’ve mentioned. He advised him that he ought to be sure that killing me doesn’t occur in Abuja; it must be finished right here, so it would appear as if it’s the folks that killed me right here…’
“And also you, SENATOR NATASHA H. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, knew this contained a menace that would hurt the popularity of Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio, GCON, because the President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“You thereby dedicated an offence opposite to Part 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, and many others.) (Modification) Act, 2024, and punishable beneath the identical part of the Act.”
The Workplace of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had harassed that the alleged act was opposite to Part 24(1)(b) of the identical regulation and punishable beneath the identical provision.
Nevertheless, Akpoti had pleaded not responsible to the cost, paving the best way for trial.
On the final proceedings, Justice Umar had adjourned the case on the occasion of the preliminary objection, holding that the Workplace of the Attorney General of the Federation should formally reply to the objection earlier than the trial may begin.
Akpoti’s counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, maintained that it might be improper for the prosecution to open its case earlier than the objection was decided.
West-Idahosa defined that the objection challenged the court docket’s jurisdiction, stressing that it was not in regards to the nature of the cost however about an alleged abuse of prosecutorial powers by the AGF.
Alternatively, D.E. Kaswe, an Assistant Director within the Division of Public Prosecutions on the OAGF, argued that the preliminary objection shouldn’t be allowed to stall the proceedings.
However Justice Umar dominated that the prosecution should first file a proper (not oral) response, emphasizing that the court docket should decide the objection earlier than taking any additional steps within the matter, in step with related legal guidelines.
