The preliminary objection filed by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan in her trial for allegedly defaming Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi State governor Yahaya Bello will be heard on December 1st, according to Justice Chizoba Oji of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, which is located in Maitama, Abuja.
On June 19, Akpoti-Uduaghan was charged with three counts of damaging imputation by the Minister of Justice and the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
In the charge, designated FCT/HC/CR/297/25, Akpoti-Uduaghan was charged with making damaging accusations that she knew would damage Senator Akpabio’s image by alleging that he conspired to assassinate her with former governor Bello.
She is also charged with making a similar damaging imputation knowing that it would damage former governor Bello’s reputation.
The prosecution further charged the troubled senator with making another imputation, which she knew would damage Akpabio’s reputation by linking him to the death of a certain Miss Imoren Iniobong.
Nevertheless, she entered a not guilty plea to the accusation.
David Kaswe, the prosecuting attorney, told the court during the case’s resumed hearing on Monday that although the defendant’s preliminary objection was scheduled to be heard, the prosecution was unable to serve its response to the objection despite having filed it with the court.
In order for the prosecution to properly serve the defendant with its response to her preliminary objection, Kaswe requested a brief postponement after informing the court that the address where the prosecution’s reply was served did not belong to any of the senator’s attorneys.
“It will not be fair for the prosecution to insist that the matter goes on as the defense team has indicated that they will respond to our counter,” the prosecutor stated.
“In this case, we are requesting a brief postponement so that we (the prosecution) can properly serve the defense.”
In response, Natasha’s lead attorney, Ehighioge West-Idahosa SAN, told the court that none of her defense team had received the prosecution’s response to his client’s preliminary objection and that they had not seen it.
None of the defendant’s attorneys received the prosecution’s response. We have not been served as defendants. The senior lawyer informed the court, “We plan to re-d when we are properly served because we have additional evidence to file.”
However, because members of the defense team intend to travel to Canada for this year’s International Bar Association gathering, he asked the court to allow a lengthy adjournment.
Judge Oji postponed the preliminary objection hearing until December 1 after hearing arguments from the parties.
West-Idahosa informed the court during the case’s final September sitting on September 23 that the defendant had submitted a notice of preliminary objection, claiming that the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation had abused its prosecutorial powers.
The senior lawyer claimed that the preliminary objection challenged the legitimacy of the accusation rather than its contents, stating that “this is the threshold of jurisdictional matter.”
He then told the court that the prosecution had not yet responded to the preliminary objection that the defense had given to the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation on September 18.
