The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 24, 2025, for the hearing of a preliminary objection raised by Senator Natasha Akpoti’s legal team following a cybercrime charge instituted against her by the Federal Government.
Nairametrics gathered that the hearing date was rescheduled by Justice Umar Mohammed’s court on Tuesday after proceedings were stalled on Monday.
The Federal High Court could not sit on Monday due to the #FreeNnamdiKanu protest, which grounded activities in the nation’s capital city centre.
Legal Dispute
In the six-count charge previously reported by Nairametrics, Akpoti was accused of violating the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, when she allegedly made comments targeting the reputation of the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.
Count 1 of the charge reads:
“That on or about the 1st day of April 2025, while addressing a crowd at Ihima Community, Kogi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, you, SENATOR NATASHA H. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, intentionally caused the following communication to be transmitted via a computer system and network, to wit:
‘…and Akpabio told Yahaya Bello, I am saying and standing by what I have said. He told him that he should make sure that killing me does not happen in Abuja; it should be done here, so it will seem as if it is the people that killed me here…’
“And you, SENATOR NATASHA H. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN, knew this contained a threat that could harm the reputation of Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio, GCON, as the President of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“You thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024, and punishable under the same section of the Act.”
The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) had stressed that the alleged act was contrary to Section 24(1)(b) of the same law and punishable under the same provision.
However, Akpoti had pleaded not guilty to the charge, paving the way for trial.
Backstory
At the last proceedings, Justice Umar had adjourned the case at the instance of the preliminary objection, holding that the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation must formally respond to the objection before the trial could commence.
Akpoti’s counsel, Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, maintained that it would be improper for the prosecution to open its case before the objection was determined.
West-Idahosa explained that the objection challenged the court’s jurisdiction, stressing that it was not about the nature of the charge but about an alleged abuse of prosecutorial powers by the AGF.
On the other hand, D.E. Kaswe, an Assistant Director in the Department of Public Prosecutions at the OAGF, argued that the preliminary objection should not be allowed to stall the proceedings.
But Justice Umar ruled that the prosecution must first file a formal (not oral) response, emphasizing that the court must determine the objection before taking any further steps in the matter, in line with relevant laws.
